QUESTIOXS  OF  THE   DAY.—XO.  XLI. 


THE 

FISHERY     QUESTION 


ITS  ORIGIN,  HISTORY  AND  PRESENT 
SITUATION 


WITH    A    MAP    OF   THE    ANGLO-AMERICAN    FISHING 
GROUNDS  AND  A  SHORT  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BY 


CHARLES   ISHAM 


NEW  YORK  &  LONDON 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS 
1887 


^ 


ll4o 


COPYRIGHT   BY 

CHARLES    ISHAM 

1887 


Press  of 

G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  York 


HP 


PREFACE. 


The  greater  part  of  this  work  was  done 
for  the  United  States  History  Seminar,  Grad- 
uate Department,  of  Harvard  University. 
The  numbers  in  the  text  refer  to  the  bibli- 
ography. C.   I. 

May  14,  1887. 


653475 


INSHOKC    riSHINC  C/^OUNDi  -  OK 

MAC/<£n£L,C0O  ■ 


THE  FISHERY  QUESTION. 


IT  is  probable  that  fishermen  from  Brit- 
tany visited  the  banks  of  Newfoundland 
before  Columbus  discovered  the  Antilles." 
Personal  interests  and  the  commercial  enter- 
prise of  Dieppe  and  St.  Malo  were  represented 
by  these  voyages,  rather  than  the  Government 
of  France  ;  for  neither  the  fishermen  nor  their 
employers  had  much  communication  with  the 
French  Court.  They  took  upon  themselves 
the  defence  of  their  trade,  and  even  the  pun- 
ishment of  their  enemies.^  By  formal  dis- 
covery England  might  have  asserted  a  mo- 
nopoly in  the  Newfoundland  Fishery,  through 
the  voyage  of  John  Cabot  in  1497.  Such 
pretensions,  however,  would  have  been  most 
dangerous  in  the  presence  of  the  far  more 
powerful  navies  of  Spain  and  Portugal.  A 
protest  against  possible  interference  was 
lodged  by  the  Spanish  ambassador  at  the 
English  Court,  but  Spain  soon  became  ab- 
sorbed In  her  rich  colonies  around  the  Gulf  of 


2  The  Fishery  Qitesiio7i. 

Mexico  and  in  South  America.^  Her  fisher- 
men grackially  left  the  banks  during  the  seven- 
teenth century/  Spanish  claims  were  revived 
as  late  as  i ^'^'^,  but  only  in  the  faint  hope  of 
bartering  them  with  England  for  the  surren- 
der of  Gibraltar.^ 

Caspar  Cortereal  sailed  from  Portugal  In 
1 501.  Upon  his  return  fishing  companies 
were  formed,  and  three  years  later  the  Indus- 
try was  strong  enough  to  pay  a  tax  of  ten  per 
cent,  on  profits  Into  the  custom-houses  of 
Emanuel  11.^ 

The  conquest  of  Portugal  by  Spain  did  not 
immediately  end  the  participation  of  the  for- 
mer in  the  Fishery.  Portuguese  vessels  were 
still  numerous  in  1583.  Then  the  numbers 
rapidly  declined.''  In  15 17  the  French  flag  is 
supposed  to  have  had  the  largest  representa- 
tion in  Newfoundland  waters.  Verrazano,  by 
virtue  of  whose  explorations  France  claimed 
a  title  in  the  New  World,  sailed  under  a 
French  commission  In  1523,  perhaps  to  cruise 
against  the  Spaniards.  Just  what  he  accom- 
plished, the  following  year.  Is  very  difficult  to 
determine.  He  may  have  touched  at  New- 
foundland before  his  return  to  port.^  France, 
now  consolidated  under  Fran9ois  I.,  was  at  last 


The  Fishery  Question,  3 

in  a  position  to  profit  by  the  skill  of  the 
Britons  In  navigation  Chabot,  admiral  of 
France,  Influenced  no  doubt  by  the  spectacle 
of  the  Spanish  colonies,  dispatched  Cartler  In 
1534  to  obtain  more  definite  Information. 
Cartler  sailed  to  Newfoundland,  and  in  the 
execution  of  his  Instructions  explored  the 
Gulf  of  Saint  Lawrence.  The  King's  ambi- 
tion was  to  be  a  power  in  Europe.  He  was 
rather  disposed  to  ridicule  western  coloniza- 
tion, and  almost  in  jest,  he  granted  the  un- 
known country  to  a  favorite.  Again  Cartler 
sailed  in  1540,  as  commander-general  under 
Robeval,  to  whom  Frangols  had  given  a  feu- 
dal seigniory,  comprehensive  enough  to  In- 
clude all  of  North  America.  Both  passed  the 
winter  in  Canada  and  both  returned,^  Robe- 
val to  engage  In  the  European  wars.  His 
attempt  to  found  a  colony  was  not  successful, 
and  he  perished  after  again  setting  out  for 
America  in  1549.  Under  the  Influence  of 
Sully,  Henry  IV.  placed  the  Fishery  under 
government  protection  and  gave  to  De  la 
Roche  the  lieutenancy  In  New  France. 

Interested  parties  may  have  caused  these 
letters  patent  to  be  revoked.  The  patentee, 
with  two  hundred  criminals,  the  material  for 


4  The  Fishery  Qicestion. 

his  colony,  did  not  sail  until  1598.'°  Leaving- 
forty  of  these  miserable  men  on  the  uninhab- 
itable Sable  Island,  the  scene  of  the  first  at- 
tempt at  French  colonization,  eighty  years 
before,  he  continued  his  course  to  the  conti- 
nent." De  la  Roche  also  returned  without 
his  company,  and  soon  afterward  died.  A 
rescuing  party  was  humanely  undertaken  by 
the  Government,  and  a  few  of  the  colonists 
were  found  and  brought  alive  to  France. 

A  commission  given  by  Henry  to  Chauvin 
indicates  the  part  played  by  the  French  mer- 
chants in  effecting  a  successful  settlement  in 
Canada.  It  contained  an  exclusive  privilege 
for  trading  in  furs.'^  The  peltry  obtained 
from  Tadousac  in  1600  and  1601  led  to  the 
formation  of  a  company  composed  of  Dieppe 
and  Malonese  merchants.  Whatever  trading 
rights  then  existed,  seem  to  have  been  cov- 
ered by  Henry's  patent  to  De  Monts,  who  in 
1603  assumed  the  viceroyalty  in  ''  La  Cadia" 
with  a  monopoly  of  the  fur  trade  from  Cap  de 
Raze,  Newfoundland,  to  fifty  degrees  north 
latitude.  The  next  year  De  Monts  set  out 
and  vigorously  raided  the  interloping  fur 
traders.  To  Potrincourt,  one  of  his  compan- 
ions, he  gave  the  site  of  the  modern  Annap- 


The  Fishery  Qicestion.  5 

olis.'3  When  De  Monts  lost  his  patent  in 
1606,  through  the  hostility  of  Malonese  rivals, 
Potrincourt  succeeded  in  obtaining-  a  con- 
firmation  of  his  grant  and  founded  Port 
Royal. 

Englishmen  already  in  Virginia  claimed 
under  their  charter  to  the  forty-fifth  degree 
north  latitude,'^  but  the  French  were  unwilling 
to  relinquish  their  occupations  within  the  de- 
batable territory.  The  Virginians,  having 
decided  to  enforce  their  rights,  as  they  under- 
stood them,  fitted  out,  in  time  of  peace,  an 
expedition  under  Argall  and  destroyed  Port 
Royal  in  161 3. '^ 

That  the  French  now  possessed  a  centre  of 
influence  and  of  resistance,  was  due  to  the 
sagacity  of  Champlain  ;  convinced  of  the  com- 
mercial and  strategical  superiority  of  the 
Saint  Lawrence  over  the  coast  line,  he  had 
founded  Quebec  in  1608,  when,  as  pilot,  he 
accompanied  De  Monts  to  Tadousac,  the 
latter  having  obtained  the  renewal  of  his 
patent  for  one  year. 

English  commerce,  heretofore  confined  to 
the  Channel  and  the  German  Ocean,  utilized 
promptly  the  discovery  of  Newfoundland,'^ 
especially  as  the    Dutch  were    then   deriving 


6  The  Fishery  Qitestion. 

great  profit  from  the  sale  of  their  herring  to 
neighbors  whose  calendar  contained  so  many 
fast  days. '7 

Elliot  and  Ashenhurst,  merchants  of  Bris- 
tol, received  letters  patent  for  colonizing 
Newfoundland  from  Henry  VII.  in  1502. 
There  seems  to  be  no  further  information  in 
regard  to  their  venture.  The  Fishery  was 
free,  by  act  of  Edward  VI.,  and  thither  as 
many  as  pleased  could  resort.  Henry  VIII. 
aided  Thorne,  of  Bristol,  in  an  attempt  to  dis- 
cover the  North-west  passage.  One  of  the 
vessels  sailing  in  1527  coasted  Newfound- 
land, Cape  Breton  and  Nova  Scotia.  Hoare 
attempted  a  colony  on  the  island  in  1536. 
His  company,  after  many  distresses,  seized  a 
French  ship,  in  Newfoundland  waters,  and 
sailed  for  home.  The  English  Government 
made  restitution  for  their  lawlessness.  Every 
spring  English  fishermen  sailed  for  the  banks, 
returning  late  in  the  autumn  with  the  catch 
dried  and  cured  on  the  island.  The  profits 
were  already  so  manifest,  that  a  monopoly 
was  eagerly  desired.  Merchants  had  begun 
to  quarrel  among  themselves  for  the  advan- 
tage of  convenient  shore  stations.  Soon 
after    the     accession     of     Elizabeth    to     the 


The  Fishery  Question,  7 

throne,  a  restless,  but  by  no  means  purpose- 
less, energy  inspired  her  seafaring  subjects.'^ 
French  adventurers  had  demonstrated  the  in- 
ability of  the  Spanish  navy  to  convey  the 
treasure  ealleons  from  the  West  Indies.  Mer- 
chants,  explorers  and  pirates  put  to  sea  and 
English  slave  dealers  forced  the  Spaniards  to 
relax  their  exclusive  trade  regulations.'^ 

Formal  intimation  of  a  design  to  acquire 
North  America  appeared  in  Gilbert  s  petition 
to  Elizabeth  makingr  mention  of  the  lands, 
"  fatally  reserved  for  England."  ''° 

In  1578  Gilbert  had  secured  letters  patent 
to  discover,  settle  and  regulate  these  remote 
countries.  Previous  to  his  departure  the 
Government  found  it  expedient  to  send  Sir 
Thomas  Hampshire  to  the  Newfoundland 
fishing  grounds,  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
disputes  over  the  pre-emption  of  shore  sta- 
tions. Gilbert  followed  in  1583,  but  the 
Spanish  war  ships  forced  him  to  return.^' 
Trying  again,  the  following  year  he  made  the 
harbor  of  St.  Johns  where  were  congregated 
fishinor  vessels  of  several  nations.  The  hos- 
tility  aroused  by  his  appearance,  at  a  time 
w^hen  any  strange  sail  might  well  be  a  pirate, 


8  The  Fishery  Qitestion. 

abated  when  he  announced  his  purpose  and 
displayed  his  authority. 

He  was  conducted  on  shore  by  the  EngHsh 
captains,  read  his  commission  in  the  presence 
of  a  polyglot  assembly,  and  took  ceremonial 
possession  of  the  island  and  all  surrounding 
lands  within  a  circumference  of  two  hundred 
leao^ues. 

No  attempt  was  made  to  prevent  a  free 
fishery  except  that  before  his  departure  a  trib- 
ute was  levied  on  foreigners  in  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  Queen's  rights.-^ 

A  report  that  Frobisher  had  discovered 
gold  mines  in  America  stimulated  the  exer- 
tions of  the  English.  There  were  many  dan- 
gers to  face  besides  those  of  the  sea.  Drake 
was  cruising  against  the  Spaniards.  There 
were  murderous  quarrels  among  the  fisher- 
men and  the  line  was  beeinnine  to  be  drawn 
between  the  French  and  the  English.  The 
detention  of  Clark  and  the  pillage  of  his  ship 
by  Frenchmen  immediately  led  to  the  arming 
of  English  crews.  Soon  afterwards,  Lee  and 
Heywick  made  a  prize  of  one  of  the  hostile 
French  vessels  and  brought  it  back  with  them 
in  1597.  Guy's  treatise  on  Newfoundland, 
the  result  of  a  two  years'  residence,  induced 


The  FisJicry   Qiccstion.  9 

the  formation  of  the  Northampton  Company 
in  1610.  Lord  Bacon,  one  of  the  associates, 
was  willing  to  leave  gold  hunting  to  others, 
but  appreciated  the  Fisheries  'Mike  which,  of 
all  minerals,  there  is  none  so  rich."  James  L, 
by  the  terms  of  this  patent,  conveyed  all  New- 
foundland from  the  forty-sixth  to  the  fifty- 
second  degree  north  latitude,  *  with  all  seas 
and  islands  within  ten  leagues  of  the  coast, 
but  reserved  to  persons  of  all  nations  the 
right  of  fishing,  except  between  capes  St. 
Mary  and  Bona  Vista,  where  the  company 
attempted  to  enforce  a  monopoly. 

Complaints  were  loud  against  the  patentees. 
Whitburne,  engaged  since  1591  in  the  fishery, 
was  sent  to  Newfoundland  to  hear  the  evi- 
dence of  one  hundred  and  seventy  English 
ship-masters,  who  claimed  that  the  company 
taxed  their  cargoes,  exacted  fees  and  pre- 
vented them  from  obtaining  bait.  On  his 
arrival  he  held  a  Court  of  Admiralty,  but 
without  restoring  tranquillity,  for  in  161 8  the 
merchants  of  Devon  sent  a  petition  to  the 
Privy  Council,  in  which  old  grievances  were 
recited  and  the  insecurity  of  the  seas,  by 
reason  of  piracies,  was  rehearsed.^^  The 
Northampton  Company  set  up  a  denial  of  the 


lo  The  Fishery   Question. 

charges.  They  admitted  the  existence  of 
piracy  and  offered  to  assist  the  merchants  in 
suppressing  it,  but  these  overtures  were  re- 
jected. The  company  then  asked  the  govern- 
ment to  make  Newfoundland  a  naval  station. 
The  request  was  accompanied  by  a  list  of 
persons  regarded  as  pirates,  an  estimate  of 
damages  amounting  to  ^48,000  sterling,  and 
a  statement  that  one  thousand  and  eighty 
fishermen  had  been  kidnapped. 

In  spite  of  this  state  of  society,  the  Fishery 
was  profitable  and  on  that  account  attractive. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century 
the  English  opinion,  often  expressed,  was 
decidedly  that  the  best  fishing  ground  existed 
off  the  New  England  coasts.'^ 

Bartholomew  Gosnold,  sailing  in  a  small 
vessel  with  a  few  fishermen,  reached  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  in  1602  and  proceeded  thence  to 
a  great  headland,  which  he  named  Cape  Cod 
on  account  of  ''  the  fish  that  pestered  the 
ships."  Pring,  Waymouth  Joselyn  and  the 
celebrated  Captain  John  Smith,  by  reiterating 
this  description  arrested  the  attention  of  the 
public. 

The  capital  necessary  for  ventures  was 
supplied,  in  great  measure,  by  merchants  of 


The  Fishery   Qicestion.  \\ 

Dorchester  and  London.  Fishing  could  only 
be  carried  on  in  the  season.  "Spare  hands," 
left  on  shore  and  furnished  with  a  winter's 
outfit,  were  the  first  New  England  colonists. 
Such  was  the  beginning  of  the  settlement  of 
Cape  Ann  in  1623.  Quiet  prosecution  of  the 
Fishery  was,  moreover,  favored  by  the  peace 
recently  concluded  between  James  I.  and  the 
King  of  Spain.  By  charter,  dated  1606,  the 
Atlantic  coast  was  parcelled  out  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  London  and  the  Plymouth  Trading 
companies,  the  latter  to  utilize  the  terri- 
tory between  Delaware  Bay  and  Port  Royal. 
This  instrument  was  subsequently  modified."^ 
It  was  through  the  exertions  of  Gorges  that 
the  Plymouth  Company  obtained  a  renewal 
of  the  original  concessions.  When  James 
asked  the  spokesmen  of  the  Pilgrims  what 
profit  might  arise  from  their  purpose  to  settle 
on  these  coasts,  they  replied  in  a  single  word, 
"fishing." 

Fishing  supplies  were  carefully  furnished 
the  emigrants  who  settled  Salem.  Fish  were 
presently  exported  from  Massachusetts  to 
Spain,  England,  the  West  Indies  and  even 
to  Holland.  -A  trade  commenced  with  the 
southern    colonies.     Winthrop,   in    1641,  esti- 


12  TJic  Fishery   Question. 

mates  the  number  of  dry  fish  sent  to  market 
at  three  hundred  thousand.^^  Saco,  Rich- 
mond's Island,  the  vicinity  of  the  Kennebec 
and  the  Penobscot  were  soon  famous  as  ad- 
vantageous fishing  grounds.  Without  knowl- 
edge of  the  geography  of  the  country  the 
French  and  English  oovernments  eranted 
patents  freely  in  the  wilds  of  North  America. 
Everywhere  the  boundaries  were  indefinite, 
the  titles  in  question  and  monopolies  of  the 
Fisheries  assumed,  if  not  expressly  mentioned. 
Companies  and  merchants  urged  their  respec- 
tive governments  to  reprisals.  Charles  I.  at 
the  beginning  of  his  reign  recognized  the  im- 
portance of  the  Newfoundland  Fishery,  beside 
making  some  provision  for  the  better  govern- 
ment of  the  island.  This  action,  however, 
was  more  than  neutralized,  in  the  opinion  of 
his  subjects,  by  the  remission  to  the  French 
of  the  former  tribute  on  their  catch.  There 
were  grave  fears  for  the  fishery  fleet  in  1625. 
Turkish  pirates  were  blockading  the  western 
ports  of  England.  From  New^foundland  also 
came  letters  of  Lord  Baltimore,  describing  the 
depredations  of  the  French,  his  own  retalia- 
tion, and  a  request  for  men-of-war  to  protect 
the  industry. 


The  Fishery  Question.  13 

The  vitality  of  the  Massachusetts  towns 
added  to  these  complications,  while  they  has- 
tened the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  mother 
country.  Peters,  a  clergyman  of  Salem, 
urged  the  settlers  to  develop  and  extend  their 
fisheries.  Winthrop  wrote  of  them,  leased 
those  within  the  patent  of  his  company,  and 
with  other  prominent  colonists  obtained  in- 
spectors of  the  annual  catch. 

The  action  of  the  Stuarts,  when  by  the 
treaty  of  St.  Germain-en-Lay,  they  ignored  the 
wishes  of  the  colonists  and  abandoned  their 
patentee,  Alexander,  together  with  their 
claims  to  Canada,  Acadia  and  Cape  Breton, 
exasperated  the  opposition  party  in  Old  and 
New  England.^7  "fh^  Newfoundland  trade 
was  furthur  irritated  by  the  remission  to  the 
French  of  the  tribute,  their  establishments  at 
Placentia,  and  the  use  they  were  permitted 
to  make  of  the  south  coast,  where  the  cod 
arrived  earlier  than  at  St.  Johns.  Boston  lis- 
tened with  approbation  to  the  denunciations 
of  the  Court  by  Bellemont,  who  traced  the 
sinister  influence  of  the  French  King  on 
Charles  and  his  Queen.  The  treaty  was  con- 
demned by  both  nations.^^  Twenty-two  years 
later  Cromwell,  in  time  of  peace,  seized  Aca- 


14  The  Fishery  Question. 

dia,  on  the  ground  that  the  cession  was  un- 
constitutional. He  also,  perhaps  through  the 
influence  of  his  son-in-law,  permitted  Kirke, 
a  royalist  patentee,  to  return  to  the  island.^^ 
But  Kirke  was  not  long  continued  there,  as 
his  endeavors  at  colonization  were  opposed 
to  the  interests  of  the  merchants  who  con- 
ducted the  Fishery  from  England.  It  is  note- 
worthy that  in  Cromwell's  time  appeared  the 
Navigation  laws,  designed  to  make  England 
a  great  naval  power,  and  to  that  end  forbid- 
ding exports  from  the  colonies  except  in 
English  vessels.  These  restrictions  were  en- 
dured while  trade  remained  inconsiderable, 
but  were  destined,  with  the  expansion  of  colo- 
nial commerce,  to  bring  about  revolution  and 
separation. 3°  Through  the  vicissitudes  and 
the  romance  of  De  la  Tour's  career,  Acadia 
was  regarded  as  English  ground,  until  the 
treaty  of  Breda  handed  the  territory  a  second 
time  to  France.  The  New  England  colonies 
still  continued  their  attacks,  but  the  French 
at  Port  Royal  were  strong  enough  to  both 
check  and  menace  the  English  settlers. 

In  1686  the  treaty  of  London  left  the 
claims  of  England  and  France  still  doubtful. 
Both  parties  took  advantage  of  this  omission 


The  Fishcjy   Qitcstion.  15 

to  continue  their  feuds.  At  the  commence- 
ment of  the  hostihties  that  were  to  end  in 
the  peace  of  Ryswick,  Louis  XIV.  proposed 
that  America  should  be  exempted  from  the 
operations  of  the  war.  WilHam  III.  refused. 
Had  he  accepted,  his  authority  could  hardly 
have  restrained  the  chronic  expeditions 
against  the  French. 

The  northern  colonies  were  incapable  of 
peace.  During  the  war  Phips  failed  in  an 
attack  on  Quebec,  but  reduced  Acadia  and 
established  an  English  government.  His 
men  were  rewarded  with  the  first  issue  of 
colonial  paper  money.  To  surrender  their 
conquests  at  the  peace  in  1697  was  a  bitter 
disappointment  for  New  Englanders,  espe- 
cially as  the  war  in  America  was  avowedly 
undertaken  to  recover  the  Fishery,  which  had 
unfortunately  excited  the  jealousy  of  the 
English  trade,  and,  in  consequence  of  viola- 
tions of  the  Navigation  laws,  the  mistrust  of 
the  government  as  well.  The  French  with- 
out delay  claimed  a  monopoly  from  Maine  to 
Labrador,  and  sent  a  frigate  to  seize  all  colo- 
nial fishing  vessels  east  of  the  Kennebec. 
In  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  the  French 
seemed  bent  upon  retrieving  in  America  their 


1 6  The  Fishery  Question,     . 

disasters  upon  the  continent  of  Europe. 
They  had  five  hundred  sail  in  the  Fishery. 
They  were  well  armed ;  had  distanced  their 
competitors  ;  were  the  first  in  the  European 
markets,  and  sold  their  fish  at  the  larger 
profit.  They  were  actually  in  peaceable  pos- 
session of  every  important  station  on  New- 
foundland before  the  end  of  the  war. 

The  Massachusetts  fishermen,  on  the  other 
hand,  swept  the  coast  of  Nova  Scotia,  twice 
attempted  the  seizure  of  Port  Royal,  and  fur- 
nished two  complete  regiments  and  the  trans- 
portation to  Nicholson,  when  he  captured 
that  town  in  1710. 

The  terms  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  at  the 
close  of  this  war,  in  1713,  were,  as  regards 
America,  in  the  nature  of  a  commercial  ar- 
rangement.3'  By  the  thirteenth  article,  New- 
foundland, with  the  French  stronghold  of 
Placentia,  was  given  to  England.  The 
French  were  to  be  allowed  to  dry  and  cure  on 
the  coast  from  Bona  Vista,  around  by  the 
north  to  Cape  Riche,  a  range  inferior  to  their 
previous  stations  on  the  south.  They  were 
not  to  fortify  or  to  be  engaged  on  the  coast, 
except  during  the  fishing  season.  England 
was  to  have    Nova  Scotia,   Acadia,   ''accord- 


The  Fishery   Qicestion.  1 7 

Ing  to  its  ancient  limits,"  and  Port  Royal, 
now  rechristened  Annapolis.  Moreover,  the 
French  Fishery  was  not  to  be  carried  on 
within  three  leagues  of  the  English  coasts, 
and  in  revenge  for  their  stubborn  defence  of 
Acadia,  the  French  were  to  keep  thirty 
leagues  out  to  sea,  south-west  of  Cape  Sable. 

Beside  this  acknowledgment  of  fishing 
claims,  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  acquired 
an  immense  territory  and  Spain  contributed 
the  Assiento  contract,  whereby  to  England 
was  assigned  the  exclusive  right  to  furnish 
the  Spanish  West  Indies  with  slaves. 

The  treaty  was  very  unpopular. ^^  France, 
it  was  said,  ought  to  have  lost  the  Newfound- 
land and  the  entire  coast  Fishery.  French 
chicane  had  triumphed  in  effecting  the  ex- 
change of  Acadia  for  Cape  Breton  and  the 
other  islands  in  the  Gulf  of  Saint  Lawrence. 
If  the  French  stations  were  the  best,  their 
retention  by  commercial  rivals  must  interfere 
with  colonial  profits  ;  if  worse,  the  quarrels 
would  not  cease.  Queen  Anne  died  of  apo- 
plexy after  a  stormy  meeting  of  her  cabinet, 
at  which  the  articles  of  the  treaty  were  dis- 
cussed. Oxford,  whose  influence  was  sup- 
posed to  have   been  for  concession,  was   im- 


1 8  The  Fishery   Quest  ion. 

peached.  Nova  Scotia,  now  permanently  in 
the  possession  of  the  British  crown,  was  al- 
most uninhabited.  The  agents  of  Massachu- 
setts opposed  its  colonization,  as  New  Eng- 
land fishing  vessels  had  already  begun  try- 
ing for  fares  on  its  coasts.  The  military 
government  was  obliged  to  fill  up  its  council 
from  the  garrison.  The  country  remained 
unfrequented,  except  as  a  fishing  ground,  until 
1748,  when  Halifax  was  founded.33  The  Eng- 
lish colonists  did  not  have  lonor  to  wait  for 
the  confirmation  of  their  misgivings  in  regard 
to  Cape  Breton.  Considerable  money  had 
been  spent  in  making  the  town  of  Louisburg, 
on  that  island,  imposing,  if  not  impregnable.^-* 
Known  as  the  ''  Dunkirk  of  America,"  it  was 
the  rendezvous  of  the  French  navy  and  mer- 
chant marine  and  the  centre  of  a  lucrative 
fishery.  Disputes  as  to  whether  it  belonged 
to  the  Enorlish,.  as  within  '*  the  ancient  limits 
of  Acadia,"  had  arisen  in  the  commission 
appointed  under  the  treaty.  It  was  asserted 
that  since  the  peace  the  French  had  carried 
on  "an  unbounded  fishery."  The  inconven- 
ience of  such  prosperity  and  naval  strength 
between  Newfoundland  and  Nova  Scotia 
was  strongly  urged,   as  well  as  the  command 


The  Fishery   Question.  19 

of    Canada,    that    possession    of    the    island 
would   give.35     Th^    governor    of    Massachu- 
setts finally  obtained  the  consent  of  his  coun- 
cil to  an  expedition  against  Louisburg.     Pep- 
perell,    the    son    of    a   fisherman    of    Mount 
Desert,     was     given     the     command,      while 
Massachusetts  furnished  three-fourths  of  the 
troops  to  co-operate  with  the  English  admiral, 
Warren.      The   colonial   army  landed   on  the 
island    May  30,    1745.      Louisburg   fell    June 
17,    a   long    interval,    as    it    seemed     to    the 
besiegers,  who  terrified  the  French  by  their 
reckless  courage. ^^     The  English  fleet  co-op- 
erated loyally  with  the  colonists,  but  had  con- 
tributed   little   to    this    exploit,    beyond    the 
capture  of  a  French  frigate  on  the  way  to  re- 
lieve the  garrison. 37     There  was  extravagant 
joy  in   England  and  America.      Louisburg,  it 
was  claimed,  counterbalanced   the   ill  success 
of    England    on    the    continent   of    Europe. 
Chesterfield  wrote  :  "I  would  hang  any  man 
who    proposed    to    exchange     Louisburg    for 
Portsmouth."     Yet   Hanoverian    interests  as- 
serted themselves  at  the  expense  of  the  col- 
onies, and  Louisburg  was  restored  to  France 
by  the    treaty    of    Aix-la-Chapelle    in    1748.^^ 
The    town    was    rebuilt.      Disputes    over   the 


20  The  Fishery   Question. 

boundaries  still  continued,  the  English  com- 
missioners claiming  that  the  Penobscot  was 
the  western  frontier  of  Nova  Scotia.  In 
Newfoundland  the  question  was  as  to  the 
location  of  Cape  Riche.  As  France  was 
known  at  that  time  to  be  strengthening  her 
marine,  Holderness,  one  of  Her  Majesty's 
secretaries  of  state,  recommended  to  the  colo- 
nial governors  a  confederation  for  mutual 
defence.  French  diplomacy  seemed  capable 
of  retrievinor  all  her  disasters.  The  Enorlish 
attempted  to  detach  Spain  from  France, 
promising  to  acknowledge  the  Spanish  claim 
to  participation  in  the  Fisheries. ^^  Spain,  forti- 
fied by  a  dispensation  from  the  Pope,  replied 
by  prohibiting  the  importation  of  foreign  fish. 
The  English  fleet,  using  Halifax  as  a  naval 
station,  occupied  Placentia,  and  aided  by  the 
''Royal  Americans"  recaptured  St.  Johns. 
Trade  was  secondary  to  war.  The  merchants 
of  the  colonies  who  engaged  in  it  at  all 
shipped  negroes  and  Indians  to  complete  the 
crews  of  their  vessels.  By  a  second  siege, 
and  the  employment  of  a  force,  immense  in 
comparison  with  the  former  operations,  Louis- 
burg  surrendered  to  Lord  Amherst  in  1758. 
Nearly    one-third    of    the     effective     men    of 


The  FisJicry   Question.  21 

Massachusetts  were  in  the  service.  Wolfe 
sailed  for  Quebec  the  following  year  and 
added  Canada  to  the  roll  of  English  posses- 
sions/°  France,  previous  to  the  war,  had  suc- 
ceeded in  drawing  a  line  of  forts  around  the 
English  on  the  seaboard.  Her  system  had 
been  thoroughly  feudal.  The  more  active 
among  her  American  subjects  had,  in  conse- 
quence, become  "  Coureurs  de  bois,"  or  had 
drifted  among  the  English.  Canada  might 
long  have  remained  a  military  government, 
supported  systematically  from  France.  The 
Court,  however,  was  thoroughly  European  in 
its  aims,  and  the  province,  assisted  at  caprice, 
was  abandoned  in  extremity.  Out  of  this 
wreck  the  French  succeeded  in  saving  the  use 
of  the  Newfoundland  coast  from  Bona  Vista 
around  by  the  north  to  Cape  Riche,  beside 
the  little  islands  of  St.  Pierre  and  Miquelon, 
the  latter  under  restrictions  that  rendered  it 
impossible  to  use  them  for  anything  more 
than  a  shelter.  The  three-league  limit  was 
enforced,  expanding  to  fifteen  leagues  off  the 
coasts  of  Nova  Scotia  and  Cape  Breton.'*^ 
Mr.  Pitt,  supported  by  the  London  merchants 
and  the  colonists,  had  favored  the  total  ex- 
clusion   of    the    French    from    the    Fisheries. 


2  2  The  Fishery  Question, 

Bedford,  believing  that  such  a  proposition 
would  stop  the  negotiations  or  lead  to  a  re- 
newal of  hostilities,  departed  from  his  instruc- 
tions by  consenting  to  a  modification  of  these 
terms/^  Careful  observers  on  both  sides  an- 
ticipated the  result  of  the  treaty  of  Paris  con- 
cluded in  1763.  Montcalm  was  consoled  for 
the  loss  of  Canada  by  the  thought  that  the 
English  colonies  would  revolt  in  ten  years. 
De  Vergennes  considered  the  cession  a  happy 
arrangement,  under  the  circumstances/^  At 
one  time  there  was  a  sentiment  in  favor  of 
exchanging  Canada  for  Guadaloupe,  but 
other  views  prevailed/^  As  it  stood,  the 
treaty  was  unsatisfactory.  The  privileges 
conceded  the  French  were  declared  to  be 
equal  to  all  Canada.  Bedford  was  accused  of 
bribery.  The  French  at  St.  Pierre  were 
watched  and  misrepresented.  The  malcon- 
tents could  only  console  themselves  with  the 
reflection  that  the  French,  if  deprived  of  the 
Fisheries,  might  retaliate  by  the  exclusion  of 
English  fish  from  the  markets  of  France  and 
her  colonies.  Freed  from  the  attacks  of  the 
traditional  enemy,  the  Fishery  was  taken  up 
with  energy  and  encouraged  by  the  exemp- 
tion from  taxes  of  boats  and  tackle.     As  the 


The  Fishery   Quest  ion,  23 

Lasis  of  a  flourishing  trade,  the  merchants 
Avho  furnished  the  capital  were  wilHng  to  take 
many  chances  and  could  sustain  considerable 
losses.  Statistics  of  the  Massachusetts  whale 
and  cod  fisheries  in  1 764  estimate  the  value 
of  the  business  at  almost  ^155,000  ster- 
ling/5  England  did  not  take  one-third  of  the 
marketable  fish.  They  were  sent  to  France, 
Spain,  Holland.  Madeira,  the  southern  col- 
onies and  later  to  Brazil  and  Paramaribo.^*^ 

The  West  India  Islands  were  consumers  of 
the  poorer  qualities.  In  exchange  for  their 
fish,  the  colonies  obtained  rum,  bullion,  bills 
of  exchange  or  commodities,  accepted  in  pay- 
ment of  English  manufactures.  The  impor- 
tance of  the  trade  was  so  thoroughly  appre- 
ciated that  in  the  State  House  at  Boston 
hung  a  painted  codfish,  a  constant  reminder 
to  the  legislators  of  the  *'  staple  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts." 

Careless  destruction  of  river  fish  had  in  a 
measure  driven  the  cod  from  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  the  New  England  fishing  towns, 
but  the  fishermen  now  had  the  ranee  of  the 
north-east  coast  to  Labrador.  The  wealthier 
firms  established  stations  at  Canso  or  in  the 
Bay  of   Chaleurs.      As   soon   as  a  more   strin- 


24  The  Fishery  Question, 

gent  application  of  the  Navigation  laws 
checked  the  export  trade,  the  irritation  of 
the  colonial  merchants  appeared.  Parliament 
decided  to  enforce  these  regulations,  and  to 
that  end  armed  the  captains  of  the  English 
men-of-war  and  revenue  cutters  with  the 
powers  of  customs  officers/^  Deprived  of 
their  markets  and  threatened  with  the  exter- 
mination of  smuggling,  the  merchants  became 
more  and  more  rebellious.  The  passage  by 
Parliament  of  an  act  making  molasses  and 
sugar,  the  product  of  the  West  Indies,  dutia- 
ble in  colonial  ports,  gave  to  the  French  and 
English  a  virtual  monopoly  of  the  Fisheries. 
Vessels  formerly  engaged  in  the  carrying 
trade  were  freighted  with  the  fishing  plant 
and  sold  abroad. 

Only  evasions  of  the  law  and  the  growth  of 
the  Inter-colonial  market  sustained  the  Indus- 
try. On  the  eve  of  the  Revolution  the  fishing 
towns  were  fairly  prosperous.  Stephen  Hlg- 
ginson  testified  before  a  committee  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  pending  the  considera- 
tion of  a  bill  framed  to  punish  rebellious  New 
England  by  depriving  her  of  participation  in 
the  cod  fishery,  that  should  the  measure  pass, 
over  six  thousand  two  hundred  Inhabitants  of 


TJie  Fishery   Qiicstion  25 

Massachusetts  would  loose  their  means  of  live- 
lihood, and  ten  thousand  persons  must  seek 
employment  elsewhere/^  Before  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Revolutionary  War,  New  England 
had  lost  the  ancient  Fisheries — as  far  as  Parlia- 
mentary action  could  go.  ''  No  taxation  with- 
out representation  "  was  not  merely  a  conven- 
ient phrase  ;  yet  duties  not  for  revenue,  but 
tending  to  circumscribe  commerce,  were  al- 
most as  obnoxious  as  direct  taxes/^  One  of 
the  arguments  in  favor  of  a  successful  revolt 
rested  on  the  strong  probability  of  effective 
assistance  from  abroad.^^  Thirteen  years  had 
fulfilled  the  anticipations  of  the  French  states- 
men. Not  that  they  mistrusted  the  colonies 
the  less,  but  that  they  disliked  England  more. 
The  United  States  Government,  before  the 
declaration,  had  dispatched  an  agent  to 
France.  French  aid  began,  covertly,  before 
the  war  and  continued  after  the  result  was  no 
longer  in  doubt.  Among  the  inducements 
offered  by  the  American  commissioners  to  ob- 
tain recognition  was  a  joint  conquest  of 
Canada  and  Newfoundland,  and  the  division 
of  the  Fishery  between  the  French  and  the 
United  States  governments.  This  was  never 
seriously  contemplated    by    France.       Before 


26  The  Fishery   Question. 

the  end  of  the  struggle,  French  diplomacy 
preferred  that  England  should  retain  Canada, 
and  that  the  limits  of  the  new  republic  should 
be  curtailed. 5' 

Upon  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Jay  In  Paris,  early 
in  September,  1782,  the  negotiations  that  were 
to  result  in  a  definite  treaty  of  peace  were 
already  in  progress. ^^  Peace  had  long  been 
desired  by  both  parties.  It  had  several  times 
been  attempted,  but  could  make  no  headway 
against  the  repugnance  of  George  III.  to  any 
acknowledgment  of  American  independence, 
and  the  artificial  identity,  in  consequence  of 
the  general  war,  of  American,  French  and 
even  Spanish  interests.  When  in  March,  i  782, 
the  ministry  of  North  fell,  and  what  was  more 
significant,  when  the  king  had  reluctantly  con- 
sented to  acquiesce  in  American  independence 
as  a  condition  precedent  to  the  formation 
of  the  Rockingham  ministry,  Franklin,  at 
Passy,  anticipated  the  new  home  secretary, 
Lord  Shelburne,  in  a  letter  Inviting  an  inter- 
change of  views.  Less  than  a  month  after- 
wards Oswald  was  In  Paris,  not  in  the  charac- 
ter of  a  formal  negotiator,  but  as  the  confidant 
and  representative  of  Shelburne  who  was  anx- 
ious  to  prepare  the  way  for   a  regularly  ac- 


The  Fishery  Qiccstion.  27 

credited  commission.  It  was  to  Shelburne's 
secretaryship  that  negotiations  properly  be- 
longed, and  it  was  not  intended  that  Oswald 
should  add  to  the  difficulties  of  his  situation 
by  overtures  addressed  to  any  but  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  colonies.  Franklin  was 
identified  with  American  diplomacy,  and  as 
minister  to  France  he  was  under  general 
instructions  relative  to  a  treaty.  Among  the 
necessary  conditions  which  he  forthwith  indi- 
cated to  Oswald,  there  were  three  of  major 
importance  :  Independence,  The  Boundaries, 
and  the  ancient  fishing  Franchises.  Oswald 
returned  to  report  progress.  His  government 
was  willing  to  admit  independence.  The  re- 
maining points  did  not  exclude  the  possibil- 
ity of  an  adjustment.  Thus  far  the  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  a  convention  had  been  sur- 
mounted, but  another  annoying  delay  now 
arose  in  consequence  of  the  relations  existing 
between  Shelburne  and  Fox.  Under  the  im- 
pression that  Oswald's  mission  was  a  trespass 
upon  his  province,  as  Foreign  Secretary,  of 
treating  with  the  European  powers,  Fox  had 
sent  Grenville  to  Versailles, — a  young  man 
whose  partisanship  and  personal  characteris- 
tics displeased  alike  Franklin,  Oswald  and  De 


28  The  Fishery   Qicestion. 

Vereennes.  Grenvllle's  communications  to 
his  principal  soon  precipitated  a  misunder- 
standine  in  the  EnorHsh  cabinet,  that  finally, 
on  the  formation  of  the  Shelburne  ministry, 
resulted  in  the  secession  of  Fox  to  the  opposi- 
tion. 

On  the  27th  of  July  Oswald  had  been 
authorized  to  modify  the  original  English 
position,  and  on  the  7th  of  August  he  had 
received  his  commission  to  treat  separately 
with  the  representatives  of  the  colonies.  At 
this  stage  of  the  negotiation,  Jay  arrived  from 
Spain.  With  the  exception  of  Franklin,  he 
was  the  first  of  the  Americans  on  the  ground, 
under  the  commission  for  a  peace,  issued  by 
Congress  on  the  8th  of  June.  Jay's  opinion 
of  French  and  Spanish  policy  had  undergone 
a  radical  change.  Formerly  the  advocate  of 
a  triple  alliance  between  America,  France  and 
Spain,  his  experience  during  an  official  resi- 
dence at  Madrid  had  convinced  him  that 
neither  France  nor  Spain  desired  to  see  the 
United  States  a  dominating  force  at  home 
or  abroad,  however  ready  they  might  be  to 
use  American  pretensions  for  their  own 
advantage,  in  the  terms  of  a  general  peace. 
With  the  arrival  of  Jay  began  the  diminution 


The  Fishery  Question.  29 

of  cordiality  between   the  American   commis- 
sion and   the  French  Court,  that  culminated 
in    the  signing  of  a   separate   treaty   by   the 
Americans  without  an   official  communication 
to    De    Vergennes    of    the    progress    of    the 
negotiations,  a  proceeding  forbidden    In    the 
instructions  of  Congress.      Every  day  marked 
the  divergence  of  American  as  distinguished 
from    French    and    Spanish    interests.       The 
latter  dreaded  the  influence  of  a  great  repub- 
lic upon  her  western  colonies,  and  the  former, 
by  surrounding  the  young  government  with 
powerful  enemies,  hoped  to  render  it   amen- 
able  to    French  influence.     This  design  was 
suspected,    and  presently  confirmed    by    the 
news    of   a   secret  mission    to    Shelburne,  as- 
sumed  by   the    French    under    secretary   of 
state,  through  whom  the  French  Government 
expressed  its  determination  not  to  recognize 
the  American    claim    to    the    Ohio    territory, 
besides  hinting  at  the  entire  exclusion  of  the 
United    States    from  the  Newfoundland  and 
the  Gulf  Fisheries.      De  Vergennes  himself,  in 
correspondence  with  his  minister  at  Philadel- 
phia, characterized  the  American  demands  as 
absurd.      Further   proof   of  the  intentions  of 
France,  in  the  form   of  an   Intercepted  letter, 


30  The  Fishery  Qitestion. 

was  placed  by  the  English  secret  service,  at 
an  opportune  moment,  in  the  hands  of  the 
American  commission.  All  parties  now 
desired  peace.  France  could  expect  nothing 
from  a  continuation  of  hostilities.  Spain 
despaired  of  obtaining  Gibraltar,  and  Eng- 
land wished  to  conclude  with  the  United 
States  because  she  could  then  force  the 
French  and  Spanish  courts  to  an  ultimatum. 
The  phraseology  of  Oswald's  instructions 
having  been  altered,  in  deference  to  the  ob- 
jections of  the  American  commission,  the 
differences  were  mainly  in  regard  to  the  Fish- 
eries, the  English  creditors  and  the  loyalists. 
On  October  5th,  Oswald  had  accepted  an 
article  permitting  the  United  States  to  dry 
their  catch  on  the  shores  of  Newfoundland. 
His  government,  noticing  this  too  ''pacifical" 
humor,  thereupon  added  Strachey,  an  under 
secretary  in  the  Home  Office,  to  the  English 
commission.  This  gentleman  achieved  a 
diplomatic  victory  at  the  outset,  owing  to  an 
unguarded,  but  sincere,  remark  of  John  Adams, 
who  had  just  reinforced  the  other  side. 
Adams  had  not  been  presented  to  De  Ver- 
gennes  when  he  met  the  English  commis- 
sioners in    Jays   apartments.       Strachey  de- 


The  Fishery   Question.  31 

manded,  in  the  course  of  conversation,  that 
the  Habihty  of  all  American  debtors  to  their 
Enorlish  creditors  should  be  acknowledeed 
by  the  treaty.  Adams  replied,  off  hand,  that 
he  had  no  objections  to  such  an  article.  On 
this  point  Franklin  had  stood  out.  The 
losses  inflicted  by  loyalists  more  than  bal- 
anced the  account,  in  his  opinion.  He  subse- 
quently yielded,  contenting  himself  with  a 
letter  to  Townsend  in  which  he  rehearsed  the 
practical  difficulties  in  the  way  of  collection. 
Adams'  convictions,  as  well  as  his  special 
knowledge,  stiffened  the  claim  to  the  Fisher- 
ies. After  a  long  discussion,  the  liberty  of 
the  Americans  to  cure  and  dry  was  trans- 
ferred from  the  coast  of  Newfoundland  to 
the  uninhabited  coasts  of  Nova  Scotia,  the 
Magdalen  Islands  and  Labrador,  as  long  as 
they  remained  unsettled.  In  the  event  of 
settlement,  the  rights  of  inhabitants,  proprie- 
tors or  possessors  of  the  ground,  were  to  be 
recognized.  Franklin  remodelled  the  article 
to  include  the  right  to  take  fish  not  only  on 
the  Grand  Bank  and  on  all  the  other  banks  of 
Newfoundland,  but  also  in  the  Gulf  of  St. 
Lawrence  and  all  other  places  in  the  sea 
**  where    the    inhabitants    of    both    countries 


32  The  Fishery  Question. 

used  at  any  time  heretofore  to  fish."  Up  to 
this  point  the  British  ministry  had  conceded. 
They  allowed  territorial  claims.  They  had 
granted  the  Maine  frontier  and  they  had 
virtually  granted  the  Fisheries,  but  with  refer- 
ence to  the  indemnification  of  the  loyalists, 
the  King,  the  Opposition  and  the  Cabinet, 
leaving  out  Shelburne,  Pitt  and  Townsend, 
united  in  the  declaration  that  they  would 
rather  continue  the  war  than  submit  to  a 
Compromise.  The  English  commissioners 
wished  the  Americans  to  understand  that  this 
was  an  ultimatum.  The  objection  on  the 
part  of  the  Americans  that  they  were  not  em- 
powered to  treat  on  this  subject,  was  met  by 
the  insinuation  that  their  full  powers  could 
be  proved  in  their  instructions  from  Congress. 
Shelburne  added  that  the  treaty  in  Its  present 
form  would  certainly  be  rejected  by  Parlia- 
ment. Franklin's  opposition  to  indemnifica- 
tion had  been  constant  and  active,  but  he 
recognized  the  truth  of  Shelburne's  statement. 
There  was  another  conference  between  the 
English  commissioners  and  their  government. 
A  new  instrument  was  drawn  and  Fitz- 
Herbert,  of  the  Foreign  Ofihce,  became  a  mem- 
ber   of     the     English  commission,     to    bring 


The  Fishe7y  Question.  33 

French  pressure  to  bear  on  the  Americans. 
De  Vereennes  was  known  to  be  in  favor  of 
indemnification  and  of  the  EngHsh  claims  in 
general.  On  the  very  day  that  the  English 
comrr^ssioners  received  their  instructions,  De 
Vereennes  wrote  that  France  would  no  more 
prolong  the  war  to  support  the  American 
claims  to  the  Fisheries,  than  would  America 
to  gain  Gibraltar  for  Spain.  Two  days  later 
George  III.  urged  Shelburne  to  propose  to 
Louis  XVI.  the  denial  of  the  Fisheries  to  the 
Americans.  The  third  article  of  the  treaty 
seemed  to  the  King  vague,  and  likely  to 
prove  a  source  of  future  complications.  Be- 
fore this  recommendation  could  receive  atten- 
tion the  commission  met.  Strachey  ex- 
plained the  concession  in  the  English  instruc- 
tions relative  to  the  Fisheries,  and  concluded 
that  indemnification  was  to  decide  the  fate  of 
the  negotiations.  Pressed  by  Jay,  he  ad- 
mitted that  this  was  not  an  ultimatum.  The 
discussion  continued  for  four  days.  On 
November  29,  the  commissioners  again 
came  together.  All  the  Americans,  including 
Laurens,  were  present.  Strachey  scored 
another  triumph  here.  It  was  promised  that 
no  further  confiscations  of  loyalist  property 
3 


34  The  Fishery   Qiccstion. 

should  take  place,  and  that  Congress  should 
^recommend  to  the  several  States  an  amnesty 
and  general  restitution.  The  last  words  on 
the  Fisheries  were  between  Adams  and 
Oswald.  It  was  resolved  to  allow  the  Ameri- 
cans riehts  co-extensive  with  those  of  Ene- 
lish  subjects,  except  the  local  restrictions 
on  drying  the  catch.  Strachey  and  Fitz- 
Herbert  wished  to  refer  the  articles,  in  their 
present  form,  to  the  English  Government. 
This  would  have  necessitated  submitting  them 
to  Parliament.  Franklin,  anticipating  the 
danger,  replied  that  then  the  question  of  the 
Enorlish  creditors  ouQrht  to  come  ao^ain  into 
discussion.  This  was  Strachey's  advantage. 
Rather  than  imperil  it,  he  withdrew  his  objec- 
tions to  an  immediate  signing.  Fitz-Herbert, 
knowing  that  the  conclusion  of  peace  with 
the  United  States  would  force  terms  upon 
France  and  Spain,  also  gave  his  consent. 
Oswald's  power  permitted  him  to  sign  with 
the  concurrence  of  his  colleagues.  The  pro- 
visional treaty  was  accordingly  signed  on 
the  30th  of  November,  1782.  Its  definitive 
character  had  been  fixed  in  the  preamble." 
Adams  alone  of  the  commissioners  escaped 
the   imputation   of  lukewarmness  toward  the 


The  Fishe7'y    Question.  35 

American  claims  to  the  Fisheries.  The  his- 
tory of  the  negotiations  indicates  that  the 
reflection  was  unjust  to  Franklin  and  Jay. 

Sentiment  in  the  United  States  was  not 
unanimous.  Samuel  Adams  hoped  not  only 
for  the  Fisheries,  but  for  Canada,  Nova  Scotia 
and  Florida.  In  March,  1779,  Congress 
voted  that  the  common  right  of  the  United 
States  in  the  fishinor  orrounds  should  in  no 
case  be  given  up.  The  month  had  not  passed 
before  the  resolution  was  reconsidered  in 
deference  to  the  French  interests.  In  May, 
independence  was  made  the  sole  condition  of 
peace  with  Great  Britain.  But  the  discussion 
had  to  be  reopened,  and  through  the  exer- 
tions of  the  New  England  deputies  it  was 
resolved  to  insist  upon  the  Fisheries.  New 
England  declared  that  her  prosperity  depend- 
ed upon  the  ancient  franchises.  Sectional 
feeling  developed.  A  resolution  offered 
in  June,  that  the  Newfoundland  Fisheries 
must  be  guaranteed  by  France,  provoked  an 
acrimonious  debate.  New  Enorland  won — 
but  four  States  threatened  to  secede.  In 
July  the  question  of  the  Fishery  was  reserved 
for  a  future  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great 
Britain,     the    proposition    to    insert    it    in    a 


36  The  Fishery  Question, 

treaty  of  peace  having  been  indefinitely 
postponed.  This  conclusion  did  not  vary. 
On  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to  nego- 
tiate a  peace,  the  common  right  of  fishing 
was  not  made  an  ultimatum.  It  was  simply 
declared  to  be  of  the  utmost  importance. 

The  English  objected  to  the  word  ''right" 
in  connection  with  drying  and  curing  the 
catch  on  English  territory,  and  "  liberty  "  was 
substituted  in  its  place.^^  John  Adams'  state- 
ment of  the  American  case  remained,  theoreti- 
cally, the  position  of  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment in  the  convention  of  18 18.  At  this 
time  there  were  some  Englishmen,  notably 
Admiral  St.  Vincent,  who  would  willingly 
have  abandoned  Canada  to  avoid  the  antici- 
pated trouble  of  holding  it.  During  the  war 
Newfoundland  had  remained  loyal.  At  first, 
riotous  demonstrations  against  the  custom- 
houses had  indicated  some  sympathy  with 
the  Americans.  Latterly  the  island  suffered 
from  the  non-importation  agreement  recom- 
mended by  the  American  Congress,  and  from 
American  privateers.  After  the  war  the 
cruelties  formerly  enforced  against  the  set- 
tlers abated.  A  better  system  of  government 
was     also     inauo^urated.       Newfoundland    re- 


The  Fishery  Qicestion.  37- 

mains  the  principal  cod  fishery  of  the  world. 
Both  French  and  Americans  are  admitted^ 
under  treaty,  to  the  in-shore  waters.^^  Dur- 
ing the  Revolutionary  War,  Halifax  was  an 
English  naval  station,  the  refuge  of  American 
loyalists.5^  So  many  of  these  people  wished 
to  leave  the  United  States  that  the  evacua- 
tion of  New  York  had  to  be  delayed  until 
transports  could  be  furnished  them.57  Re- 
warded with  office  and  grants  of  land  in  unin- 
habited Nova  Scotia  they  became  the  ruling 
party  on  the  north-eastern  frontiers  of  the 
United  States.  These  regions  had  been 
almost  without  a  population.^^  Attempts  at 
revolution  were  suppressed  by  the  English 
garrison  and  the  minority  reorganized  the 
government,  on  paper,  from  the  safe  distance 
of  Philadelphia. 59  The  fishing  privileges  of 
the  treaty  were  gained  after  a  comparatively- 
easy  diplomatic  struggle,  but  the  negotiations 
nearly  went  to  pieces  over  the  indemnification 
of  the  loyalists.  Congress  recommended 
amnesty  and  restitution,  as  had  been  prom- 
ised. The  States,  however,  were  in  no  tem- 
per for  such  legislation.  It  was  most  unfor- 
tunate for  the  quiet  enjoyment  of  the  Fishery 
under  the   treaty,   that  so   many  men  with  a 


2,S  The  Fishery  Qitcstion. 

erievance    inhabited    the    shores    where    the 
liberty  was  to  be  exercised. 

England,  now  in  direct  competition  with 
the  products  of  the  American  Fishery,  was  not 
without  the  power  to  obstruct  the  American 
trade.  In  July  of  the  same  year  that  the 
treaty  was  signed,  an  order  in  council  prohib- 
ited the  importation  of  American  fish  to  the 
markets  of  the  English  West  Indies.  Con- 
gress wished  to  meet  the  emergency  and 
asked  of  the  States  permission  to  retaliate. 
This  was  not  given.  In  the  constitutional 
convention  Pickering  said  that  the  New 
England  States  had  lost  everything  by  the 
war.  In  the  first  Congress,  Fisher  Ames 
declared  that  West  Indian  molasses  had  been 
counted  upon  in  exchange  for  the  fish  that 
could  not  be  disposed  of  elsewhere.  He  con- 
cluded that  if  the  West  Indian  demand  for 
fish  were  injured,  ''  we  cannot  maintain  the 
fisheries."  Extraordinary  measures  were  pres- 
ently adopted  to  sustain  the  failing  industry.^ 
By  an  act  of  1 789  a  bounty  was  granted  on 
the  various  kinds  of  marketable  fish.  It  was 
considered  insufificient.  By  another  act,  in 
1792,  the  bounties  were  abolished,  and  a  spe- 
cific  allowance  was  established,  according  to 


The  Fishery  Qztcstion,  39 

tonnage.  In  spite  of  objections  based  on  the 
unconstitutionality  of  a  pecuniary  encourage- 
ment to  an  occupation,  the  system  was  con- 
tinued   down    to    the    reciprocity   treaty    of 

1854.'^ 

The  volume  of  commerce  carried  on  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
was  greater  than  before  the  war.  The  twc 
nations  divided  the  carrying  trade  of  the 
world,  yet  all  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  Fisheries 
were  pronounced  hopeless,  in  the  face  of 
British  opposition.  A  committee  of  Congress 
reported  in  1802,  that  it  was  doubtful  if  the 
United  States  employed  as  large  a  tonnage 
and  as  many  men  in  the  whale  and  cod  fishery 
as  before  the  Revolution.  Merchants  com- 
plained that  the  market  was  glutted  with 
British  fish.  Regrets  for  the  good  old  priva- 
teering days  of  the  war  were  frequently  ex- 
pressed. From  prosperity  the  fish  trade  fell 
away  until  18 14,  when  the  value  of  fish  ex- 
ported was  only  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
eight  thousand  dollars.^^  A  very  unpopular 
measure  in  New  England  was  the  Embargo. 
It  was  partially  evaded  by  the  use  of  small 
boats  in  the  South  American  trade.  Fish 
spoiled  in  the  warehouses  or  were  confiscated 


40  The  Fishery  QiLestioii. 

in  the  ports  of  Europe.  Meanwhile  the  pop- 
ulation of  Nova  Scotia  had  doubled  and  be- 
came alive  to  local  interests.  The  operations 
of  American  fishermen,  under  the  late  treaty, 
were  jealously  noted.  They  were  accused  of 
taking  away  the  English  trade  ;  of  smuggling 
and  enjoying  privileges  in  contravention  of 
public  law.  Watchers  counted  the  American 
fishing  fleets  as  they  passed  the  Strait  of 
Canso.  The  home  government,  in  conse- 
quence of  colonial  representations,  was 
brought  to  the  conclusion  that  the  treaty  had 
granted  too  much.^^  It  was  felt  that  some- 
thing ought  to  be  done  for  the  loyalists  of 
Nova  Scotia  and  New  Brunswick,  many  of 
whom  expected  that  the  result  of  the  hostil- 
ities would  reinstate  them  in  their  old  home- 
steads. 

In  1 8 14  a  British  squadron  commanded  for 
a  time  the  Maine  and  Massachusetts  coasts, 
exacted  tribute  from  the  salting  establish- 
ments on  Cape  Ann,  and  entirely  suppressed 
the  use  of  any  but  fresh  fish.  On  land  there 
was  some  ground  for  the  remark  of  the  Rus- 
sian  ambassador,  that  "  England  did  what- 
ever she  pleased."  The  American  commis- 
sioners, who  signed  the  treaty  of   18 14  before 


The  Fishery   Question.  41 

the  news  of  the  battle  of  New  Orleans,  were 
aware  that  a  strong  party  at  home  wished 
peace  on  almost  any  terms. 

England  made  territorial  claims,  and,  as  an 
inducement  for  their  consideration,  offered  the 
old  fishing  privileges  stated  to  have  been 
abrogated  by  the  war.  The  instructions  of 
the  United  States  commissioners  were  to 
obtain  peace  and  preserve  the  Fishery.  The 
British  Government  refused  to  accept,  in  ex- 
change, a  renewal  of  the  previous  English 
right  to    navigate  the  Mississippi.^"^ 

In  1782  part  of  the  river  was  supposed  to 
be  in  British  territory,  but  this  was  now 
known  to  be  an  error.  England  maintained 
that  her  right  of  navigation  had  also  been 
abrogated  by  the  war.  The  negotiations 
were  marked  by  considerable  temper  on  both 
sides,  and  the  Americans  quarrelled  among 
themselves.  Peace  was  concluded,  but  noth- 
ing was  said  in  the  instrument  concerning  the 
Fisher}^  England  lost  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi,  which  she  had  never  used.  The 
theoretical  basis  of  the  American  claim  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  clear  in  the  minds  of 
eminent  American  statesmen.  Gallatin  wrote 
to  Monroe  that  on  the  subject  of  the  Fisher- 


42  The  Fishery  Qitcstion. 

ies  the  commission  had  done  all  that  could 
be  done. 

The  only  equivalent  they  had  to  offer  was. 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  that 
had  been  refused.  The  British  Government 
at  once  proceeded  to  enforce  its  interpreta- 
tion of  the  treaty. ^5  United  States  fishermen 
were  seized  off  Cape  Sable,  outside  of  the 
three-mile  limit,  but  the  British  charge  d'af- 
fairs  at  Washington  replied  to  Mr.  Monroe 
that  the  captain  of  the  English  war  vessel 
had  exceeded  his  authority.  Other  vessels 
were  now  seized,  some  for  good  reason.  It 
was  resolved  to  hold  a  convention  between 
the  countries  to  define  their  respective  fishing 
rights. 

The  American  case,  developed  in  the  cor- 
respondence of  John  Ouincy  Adams,  rested 
on  immemorial  usage,  discovery  and  part 
conquest,  and  on  the  nature  of  the  treaty  of 
1783  f^  whether  England  at  that  time  had 
acknowledged  the  inherent  right  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  to  the  Fishery  in  British  waters/^ 
To  minds  unacquainted  with  the  peculiar 
relations  of  the  colonies  to  the  Fisheries  be- 
fore the  Revolution,  or  without  sympathy  for 
the  interests  of  the  American  trade,  the  de- 


The  FisJie^y  Qicestioji.  43 

mands  of  the  United  States  were  incompre- 
hensible. Therein  lay  the  weakness  of  the 
American  position.  Selfish  considerations 
aside,  De  Vergennes  could  honestly  say  that 
to  claim  the  privileges  of  subjects  after  re- 
nouncing allegiance  was  unprecedented.^^  In 
fact,  had  the  maritime  provinces  of  Canada 
been  populous  at  the  signing  of  the  first 
treaty  the  insecurity  of  such  an  arrangerr^ent 
must  have  led  to  some  modification  of  the 
terms.  Fishing  in  the  open  sea  was  then  ac- 
knowledged to  be  free  to  all  the  world,  and 
this  general  principle  would  have  given  the 
United  States  the  cod  fishery  on  the  banks. 

Within  three  miles  of  the  coast  riparian 
jurisdiction  was  the  rule,  and  every  vessel 
crossing  the  marine  boundary  must,  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  riparian  state,  conform  to  the 
regulations,  including  tolls  for  the  use  of  es- 
tablishments for  the  purpose  of  navigation 
and  fishing.  These  restrictions  could  be 
modified  only  by  treaty. ^^  American  use  of 
the  Fishery  was  not  immemorial  to  the  time 
when  the  colonists  fished  as  subjects  of  the 
king  and  in  virtue  of  permission  granted  in 
their  charters.  Discovery,  development  and 
defence  of  the  Fishery  were  equitable  claims. 


44  The  Fishery  Question, 

but  to  make  them  effective,  In  the  presence  of 
a  hostile  population,  the  shores  where  they 
were  to  be  enforced  should  have  been  con- 
quered and  retained.  Of  the  treaty  itself  it 
was  asserted  that  it  was  in  the  nature  of  a 
deed  of  partition.  The  grant  of  the  Fishery 
was  analogous  to  the  cession  of  territory  or 
the  demarcation  of  a  boundary.  It  was  urged 
that  the  sequence  of  the  treaty,  as  shown  in 
the  acknowledgment  of  independence,  the 
cession  of  territory  and  the  settlement  of 
boundaries  made  it  an  instrument  permanent 
in  its  provisions. 7° 

Of  the  later  view,  that  the  Third  Article  was 
an  executed  grant,  acknowledging  a  perma- 
nent servitude,  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
the  participation  of  British  subjects  in  the 
Fishery,  on  equal  terms  with  the  people 
of  the  United  States,  does  not  exclude  such  a 
theory.^' 

The  American  argument  was  not  convinc- 
ing, because  the  third  article  is  susceptible  of 
a  different  interpretation. ^^  The  British  Gov- 
ernment could  and  did  reply,  that  the  perma- 
nent part  was  not  only  distinguishable  from 
the  temporary,  but  that  it  was  thus  distin- 
guished by  the  treaty  itself,  which  mentioned 


The  Fishery  Oiicstion.  45 

the  "rieht"  to  fish  on  the  Grand  Bank  and  all 
other  places  in  the  sea,  but  only  of  the 
''  liberty  "  to  dry  and  cure  on  certain  uninhab- 
ited coasts.  And  further,  that  the  privilege 
of  drying  and  curing,  if  intended  to  be  per- 
manent, would  not  have  been  made  determin- 
able by  the  settlement  of  the  coast  line. 

Both  governments  were  inclined  to  press 
their  opinions.  John  Quincy  Adams,  in  con- 
versation with  the  British  minister  at  Wash- 
ington, thought  that  the  nations  would  have 
to  fio^ht  and  ouo^ht  to.^^  Mr.  Gallatin  wrote 
to  Adams  from  London,  that  the  provisions 
of  the  third  article  were  obnoxious  to  British 
pride,  and  that  no  treaty  stipulation  could 
provide  for  the  security  of  the  American  in- 
terpretation, in  the  event  of  a  war.^* 

In  the  convention  of  181 8  the  question  of 
the  Fishery,  though  not  the  first  in  order  of 
discussion,  was  the  first  considered.^^  Misun- 
derstandings menaced  the  peace  of  both 
countries.  At  length  the  first  article  of  the 
treaty  was  inserted,  under  instructions  from 
Mr.  Adams,  authorizing  the  United  States 
commissioners  to  agree  to  a  stipulation 
whereby  the  United  States  should  desist  from 
fishing,  curing  and  drying  fish  within  the  Brit- 


46  The  Fishery  Question. 

ish  jurisdiction  generally,  on  condition  that 
these  occupations  should  be  secured  as  a  per- 
manent right,  not  liable  to  be  impaired  by 
future  wars,  from  Cape  Ray  in  Newfound- 
land to  the  Rameau  Islands,  and  from  Mt. 
Joly  on  the  Labrador  coast  through  the 
straits  of  Belle  Isle,  indefinitely  northward 
along  the  coast ;  the  right  to  include  curing 
and  drying  the  fish  as  well  as  fishing. 

In  the  treaty,  as  concluded,  the  first  article 
reads  as  follows:  ''Whereas  differences  have 
arisen  respecting  the  liberty  claimed  by  the 
United  States  for  the  inhabitants  thereof, 
to  take,  dry  and  cure  fish  on  certain  coasts, 
bays,  harbors  and  creeks  of  His  British  Maj- 
esty's dominions  in  America,  it  is  agreed  .  .  . 
that  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  United  States 
shall  have  forever,  in  common  with  the  sub- 
jects of  His  British  Majesty,  the  liberty  to 
take  fish  of  every  kind  on  that  part  of  the 
coast  of  Newfoundland  which  extends  from 
Cape  Ray  to  the  Rameau  Islands,  on  the 
western  and  northern  coasts  of  Newfound- 
land, from  the  said  Cape  Ray  to  the  Ouirpon 
Islands  ;  on  the  shores  of  the  Magdalen  Isl- 
ands and  also  on  the  coasts,  bays,  harbors 
and  creeks    from    Mt.  Joly  on    the    southern 


The  Fishery   Qicestioii.  47 

coast  of  Labrador  to  and  through  the  straits 
of  Belle  Isle  and  thence  northwardly,  indefi- 
nitely along  the  coast,  without  prejudice,  how- 
ever, to  any  of  the  exclusive  rights  of  the 
Hudson  Bay  Company,  and  that  the  Ameri- 
can fishermen  shall  also  have  liberty  forever 
to  dry  and  cure  fish  in  any  of  the  unsettled 
bays,  harbors  and  creeks  of  the  southern 
coast  of  Newfoundland,  here  above  described, 
and  of  the  coast  of  Labrador  ;  but  so  soon  as 
the  same  shall  be  settled  it  shall  not  be  law- 
ful for  the  fishermen  to  dry  or  cure  on  such 
portion  so  settled,  without  previous  agree- 
ment for  such  purpose  with  the  inhabitants, 
proprietors  or  possessors  of  the  ground. 
And  the  United  States  hereby  renounce  for- 
ever any  liberty  heretofore  enjoyed  or 
claimed  by  the  inhabitants  thereof  to  take, 
dry  or  cure  fish  on  or  within  three  marine 
miles  of  any  of  the  coasts,  bays  or  harbors  of 
His  British  Majesty's  dominions  in  America, 
not  included  in  the  above  mentioned  limits. 
Provided,  however,  that  the  American  fisher- 
men shall  be  permitted  to  enter  such  bays  or 
harbors  for  the  purpose  of  shelter  and  of  re- 
pairing damages  therein,  of  purchasing  wood 
and  of  obtaining  water  and  for  no  other  pur- 


48  The  Fishery   Question. 

pose  whatever.  But  they  shall  be  under  such 
restrictions  as  may  be  necessary  to  prevent 
their  taking,  drying  or  curing  fish  therein  or 
in  any  other  manner  abusing  the  privileges 
hereby  reserved  to  them." 

Originally  the  final  proviso  permitted  the 
American  fishermen  to  enter  for  the  purchase 
of  bait,  *' tinker  mackerel,"  or  herring  cut 
into  pieces.  This  was  subsequently  omitted 
with  the  consent  of  the  American  Commis- 
sion. The  mackerel  fishery  had  not  as  yet 
assumed  large  proportions.  Its  subsequent 
importance  was  unforeseen  and  naturally  un- 
considered. No  licenses  to  mackerel  boats 
were  issued  prior  to  1828.^^  Cod  were  seldom 
pursued  within  the  three-mile  limit.  In  the 
cod  fishery  it  was  not  a  very  valuable  conces- 
sion to  purchase  bait.  But  to  land  and  cure, 
on  the  contrary,  were  great  conveniences. 
By  the  convention  the  United  States  in  this 
respect  were  better  off  than  before.  The  bar- 
gain was  not  considered  bad.  All  fisheries 
not  guaranteed  by  the  treaty  were  expressly 
renounced,  and  purposely,  to  exclude  the  im- 
plication that  the  rights  obtained  were  in  the 
nature  of  a  new  grant,  to  place  the  liberty 
now  secured   on   the    same    permanent   basis 


The  Fisheiy   Qicestion.  49 

and  to  make  It  appear  expressly  that  the  re- 
nunciation was  limited  to  three  miles  from 
the  coasts. 

Gallatin  wrote  from  the  scene  of  the  con- 
vention that  if  compromise  must  come,  now 
was  the  time.  No  court  in  England  would 
interpret  the  former  treaty  from  the  United 
States'  standpoint.  If  the  matter  were  not 
arrano-ed,  immediate  collisions  must  ensue. 
We  then  would  have  to  fight. ^^  Mr.  Adams 
said:  ''This  secures  the  whole  coast  fishing 
three  miles  from  the  shore."  For  the  next 
few  years  bounties  on  tonnage,  drawbacks  on 
salt  duties,  license  fees,  exemption  from 
entry  and  clearing  charges,  the  enterprise  of 
the  American  fishing  industry  and  the  supe- 
riority of  their  fleet  over  the  Canadian  boats, 
rendered  the  business,  on  the  whole,  prosper- 

OUS.7^ 

With  time,  Provincial,  in  contradistinction 
to  British  interpretation  of  this  treaty,  and 
notably  the  unfriendly  spirit  of  provincial 
regulations,  was  responsible  for  a  feeling  of 
irritation,  so  pronounced  as  almost  to  have 
invited  a  war.  In  18 19  an  act  of  Parliament, 
empowering  the  King  to  make  Orders  in  Coun- 
cil  for  regulating  the    Fishery  and  imposing 


50  The  Fishery   Q2iestion. 

the  penalties  of  fines  and  confiscations  for 
trespass,  was  used  by  the  Provincial  legisla- 
tures to  set  a  premium  on  interference  with 
American  fishermen.''^  The  growth  of  the 
mackerel  fishery,  the  habit  of  the  fish  to  run 
in  shore,  "  chumming,"  ^°  viz.,  the  throwing 
out  of  surface  bait,  an  oily  mixture  of  porgies 
and  clams,  and  the  fact  that  half  the  Ameri- 
can mackerel  fleet  visited  the  Gulf  of  St. 
Lawrence  and  the  Bay  of  Chaleurs,  via  the 
Strait  of  Canso,  increased  the  temptation  of  the 
Americans  to  transgress  the  three-mile  limit 
and  intensified  the  determination  of  the  in- 
habitants to  enforce  a  strict  interpretation. 
Only  one  vessel  was  seized  in  1823.  In  1824 
nine  were  taken.  The  following  year,  peti- 
tions from  merchants  and  fishermen  induced 
the  United  States  Government  to  send  a  war 
vessel  to  the  fishing  grounds.^'  The  repre- 
sentations of  the  United  States  Government 
remained  without  an  answer,  nor  had  the 
British  Government  received  a  reply  to  their 
note.  The  State  Department  incurred  the 
reproach  of  inactivity.  American  vessels, 
said  to  have  committed  no  serious  infraction 
of  the  convention,  were  chased  about  by  Brit- 
ish   and    Provincial   captains    on     charges    of 


The  Fishery  Qtiestioii.  51 

hoverinor,  fishing  within  the  three-mile  limit, 
purchasing  bait,  selling  goods,  or  landing  and 
transshipping  fish,  while  the  inhabitants  of 
Nova  Scotia  petitioned  for  more  stringent 
enforcement  and  passed  an  exceedingly  un- 
friendly act,  that  gave  to  "  cruisers  "  and  cus- 
toms officers  the  power  to  harass  or  detain 
American  fishine  vessels  and  to  confiscate 
the  property  of  American  citizens.  The 
manner  in  which  these  provisions  were  en- 
forced varied.  Leniency  and  harshness  de- 
pended on  the  discretion  or  temper  of  the 
of^cers  on  duty.  It  was  entirely  a  question 
of  interpretation  of  the  first  article  of  the 
treaty. 

Hostility  culminated  in  1841,  when  the 
government  of  Nova  Scotia  submitted  to  the 
Crown  lawyers  a  series  of  questions,  on  which 
their  opinions  were  sought,  as  a  basis  for 
future  leofislation.  These  involved  the  rieht 
of  the  United  States,  under  the  convention  of 
t8i8,  to  navigate  the  Strait  of  Canso,  to  fish  in 
the  bays  of  Fundy  and  Chaleurs,  and  to  land 
on  the  coast  of  the  Mao^dalen  Islands.  The 
Crown  lawyers  replied,  that  bays  were  to  be 
measured  from  headland  to  headland,  that  the 
three-mile     limit    should     be    drawn   at    ricrht 


52  The  Fishery  Questzoju 

angles  and  outside  of  such  an  imaginary  line  ; 
that  the  convention  of  1818  did  not  neeative 
the  right  of  the  United  States  to  navigate  the 
Strait  of  Canso,  but  that  independent  of 
treaty,  no  foreign  state  possessed  such  a  right. 
Also,  that  by  the  terms  of  the  convention 
American  fishermen  were  prohibited  from 
landing  on  the  shores  of  the  Magdalen 
Islands. 

As  a  general  principle  the  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion of  a  government  over  its  bays  may  be 
asserted,  and  no  other  reason  than  its  own 
convenience  need  be  alleged.  The  United 
States  has  so  asserted  it,  and  has  in  some 
cases  drawn  the  line  from  headland  to  head- 
land,^^  yet  it  was  fair  to  conclude  that  the  con- 
vention of  18 1 8  should  be  interpreted  in  a 
friendly  spirit,  as  intended  to  give  to  Ameri- 
can fishermen  every  advantage  compatible 
with  the  terms.  On  general  principles  also, 
the  right  to  navigate  a  strait  was  no  infraction 
of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  state  in 
possession  of  both  shores,  but  was  controlled 
by  the  right  to  navigate  the  seas  thus  con- 
nected.^3  The  Strait  of  Canso  separates  Nova 
Scotia  from  Cape  Breton. ^^  It  is  twenty 
miles  long  and  in  one  place  not  more  than  a 


The  Fishery  Question.  53; 

mile  wide.  In  1820  the  government  of  Nova 
Scotia  annexed  Cape  Breton  and  laid  out 
counties  across  the  strait.  All  vessels  used 
the  passage  on  their  way  from  the  Atlantic  to 
the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  as  it  avoided  the 
long  and  dangerous  circuit  around  the  Island 
of  Cape  Breton.  The  American  fishermen 
had  thus  used  it  since  the  beginning  of  the 
Gulf  Fishery,  and  had  paid  tolls,  when,  by  the 
McLean  arrangement,  British  vessels  were 
passing  and  repassing  unmulcted  through 
Long  Island  Sound.  As  for  the  Magdalen 
coasts,  the  locality  is  a  herring,  not  a  cod, 
fishery.  These  fish  were  taken  in  seines  or  in 
weirs  built  on  the  beach,  almost  within  low 
water  mark.  The  convention  conceded  the 
liberty  to  take  **  fish  of  every  kind  "  on  the 
shores  of  these  islands.  As  it  was  intended  by 
the  convention  to  give  the  herring  fishery,  the 
right  to  land  is  accessory  to  its  prosecution. 

On  the  arrival  of  the  opinion  of  the  Crown 
lawyers  in  Nova  Scotia,  the  authorities  pro- 
ceeded to  employ  its  convenient  law,  as  if  it 
had  been  communicated  to,  and  acquiesced  in 
by,  the  United  States  Government.  They  did 
not  get  a  fieet  from  England,  though  they 
asked  for  it.      Raising  a  small   force  of  their 


54  ^/^^  Fishery  Question. 

own,  they  denied  the  right  of  passage  through 
the  Strait  of  Canso,  an  arbitrary  act,  at  vari- 
ance with  the  sentiment  of  the  home  govern- 
ment, opposed  to  EngHsh  public  opinion,  and 
a  hostile  demonstration  against  a  friendly 
power.  They  prevented  Americans  from  land- 
ing on  the  Magdalen  Islands,  and  on  the  30th 
of  June,  1843,  they  seized  a  little  American 
vessel,  the  Washington,  ten  miles  from  the 
shore  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy.  Mr.  Everett,  the 
American  minister  to  England,  protested. 
The  British  Government  apparently  willing  to 
avoid  extreme  measures,  except  when  under 
colonial  pressure,  offered  to  admit  our  fisher- 
men to  the  Bay  of  Fundy.  Mr.  Everett  did 
not  regard  this  as  a  concession,  but  accepted 
it  as  a  right.  When  the  news  of  this  disposi- 
tion of  the  question  reached  Nova  Scotia,  the 
authorities  protested  to  the  home  government. 
The  protest  was  successful  and  the  assurance 
was  conveyed  that  England  would  adhere  to 
a  strict  interpretation.  The  question  was 
ultimately  referred  to  a  commission,  in  1853. 

The  commissioners  disagreed  and  left  the 
decision  to  the  umpire,  Mr.  Bates,  of  Baring 
Brothers,  who  ruled  that  no  indentation 
of   the   coast,   exceedinq-  ten    miles   in  width, 


The  Fishery   Question.  55 

from  headland  to  headland,  could  be  con- 
sidered a  bay  in  the  premises.  An  opinion, 
illustrating  *' the  rational  principles  of  Inter- 
national Law,"  followed  in  the  Anglo-French 
treaty  of  1867,^^  but  not  as  yet  accepted  by 
the  Dominion  of  Canada.  At  the  root  of 
the  Provincial  demonstrations  lay  the  desire  of 
forcing  the  United  States  into  concessions  of 
reciprocity.  By  adopting  free  trade  England 
had  curtailed  her  demand  for  the  natural 
products  of  the  British  American  provinces. 
Participation  in  the  United  States  market,  on 
favorable  terms,  thus  became  a  primary  object 
to  the  Canadians,  and  in  1847  the  Canadian 
Parliament  petitioned  the  Queen  for  reciproc- 
ity with  the  United  States.  England  had  fol- 
lowed the  aggressive  policy  of  the  provinces 
with  reluctance.  She  had  followed,  neverthe- 
less. Until  free  trade  triumphed,  it  was  not  her 
commercial  policy  to  seek  reciprocity.  When 
the  principle  was  adopted,  a  measure  of  free 
trade  with  the  United  States  mieht  be  ob- 
tained  through  Canada.  The  zeal  of  the 
provinces  almost  defeated  their  end,  under 
the  impression  that  the  tribulations  of  the 
American  fisherman  miorht  be  exhibited  to  his 
Government,  as  a  reason  for  conferring  a  priv- 


56  The  Fishery  Question. 

Ilege  upon  his  tormentors.^^  Statements  In 
regard  to  the  trade  were  contradictory.  In 
England  the  utiHty  of  protecting  the  Cana- 
dians was  questioned,  as  fish  caught  by  British 
subjects  could  not  be  disposed  of  in  Europe 
or  the  United  States.  It  was  useless  to  con- 
tend against  the  American  bounty  system.^^ 
On  the  other  hand,  modifications  in  the 
United  States  revenue  laws  were  opposed,  on 
the  ground  that  Canadian  fish  already  monop- 
olized the  export  trade.^^  At  this  juncture 
Lord  Elgin,  then  Governor  General  of 
Canada,  arrived  in  Washington  with  the  ex- 
press object  of  negotiating  a  treaty.  The 
**  Nebraska  Bill "  was  the  absorbing  event  In 
political  circles  at  the  time.  He  was  in- 
formed by  the  Pierce  administration  that  the 
greatest  hostility  to  the  treaty  might  be 
looked  for  among  the  Democrats,  and  he  set 
about  to  overcome  it  with  so  much  tact  and 
the  quality  since  recognized  as  ''  personal 
magnetism,"  that  at  the  conclusion  of  a  fort- 
night the  negotiation  of  seven  years'  standing 
between  the  governments  was  brought  to  a 
successful  termination.  There  was  a  good 
deal  said,  Intimating  that  the  treaty  had  been 
"floated  through  on   champagne,"  but  there 


The  Fishery   Question.  57 

were  graver  forces  behind  it,  for  while  return- 
ing toward  the  seat  of  his  government  Lord 
Elgin  was  feted  not  only  in  Canada  but  on 
the  American  seaboard.  Curiously  enough  the 
Canadian  fishinor  interest  took  alarm.  While 
the  treaty  passed  the  United  States  Senate, 
the  maritime  provinces  of  Canada,  not  at  that 
period  confederated,  made  a  sharp  although 
brief  resistance.^^  Thus  reciprocity  came  in 
1854.  Canadian  natural  products  were  ad- 
mitted into  the  United  States  free,  and  fishing 
rights,  analogous  to  those  of  1783,  were 
granted  in  exchange.^  This  time  there  was 
no  doubt  as  to  the  consideration.  Canadian 
trade  quadrupled,  and  the  American  fisher- 
men were  easily  tolerated  all  along  the  pro- 
vincial coasts,  until  the  termination  of  the 
treaty  by  the  United  States  in  1866.  The 
tonnage  of  the  American  fishing  fleet  had  in- 
creased, but  the  Canadian  trade  prospered  to 
such  an  extent  that  the  American  fishermen 
dreaded  the  growing  competition.  There  had 
been  complaints  of  the  commercial  policy  of 
Canada  during  this  period,  and  a  stronger 
feelinof  towards  its  close.^'  From  an  unnat- 
ural  cordiality,  on  the  eve  of  the  Civil  War, 
the  Enorllsh  Government  and  rulinor  class  sud- 

o  o 


58  The  Fishery   Question. 

denly  changed  to  an  attitude  of  unfriendliness 
amounting  to  insult,  a  disposition  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  difficulties  of  the  United 
States  amounting  to  menace,  and  the  permis- 
sion of  operations  by  the  Confederacy  almost 
amounting  to  war.^^  Canada  was  the  rendez- 
vous of  British  armies  and  navies.  There 
was  talk  of  making  it  a  strong  military  power 
and  of  annexinor  Maine. 

It  was  the  refuge  of  the  most  venomous  of 
the  enemies  of  the  United  States.  When 
the  hands  of  the  Federal  Government  were 
free,  reciprocity  with  Canada  ceased  on 
notice,  and  Napoleon  was  requested  to  aban- 
don Mexico.  Little  attention  was  paid  to 
the  complaints  of  the  provinces,  that  their 
wishes  had  not  been  consulted  in  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  treaty  and  that  the  Americans 
continued  to  fish  as  before  in  spite  of  the 
proclamation  of  the  President.  American 
fishermen  were  allowed  within  the  three-mile 
limit  for  a  time,  on  the  payment  of  a  license 
fee  of  fifty  cents  a  ton.  This  was  afterwards 
raised  to  two  dollars.  The  fourth  year  only 
twenty-five  small  vessels  cared  to  purchase 
the  privilege,  the  larger  ones  being  willing 
to  take  their   chances  outside. ^^     All  foreign 


The  Fishery  Question.  59 

fishermen,  by  Dominion  acts  of  1868  and 
1870,  and  by  an  Order  of  the  Governor  Gen- 
eral of  Canada,  were  warned  off  Canadian 
waters  and  the  nature  of  the  restrictions  was 
communicated  to  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, which  in  turn,  by  a  treasury  circular  of 
1870,  called  the  attention  of  the  American 
fishermen  to  the  regulations.  Canada,  Nova 
Scotia  and  New  Brunswick  were  united  in 
1867,  and  the  Fisheries  erected  into  a  depart- 
ment under  a  minister.  All  intention  of  in- 
terference with  American  ricrhts  was  dis- 
claimed,  but  the  spirit  interpreting  the  en- 
forcement of  the  laws  remained  unfriendly. 
Bait  and  supplies  were  denied.  There  was 
an  intimation  that  the  transshipment  of  fish 
in  bond  would  be  stopped,  and  the  headland 
dispute  was  held  in  abeyance,  pending  some 
satisfactory  arrangement  with  the  United 
States.  Canadian  cruisers  cost  their  govern- 
ment nearly  a  million  of  dollars  in  the  years 
1869  and  1870,  and  the  practice  of  giving 
warninors    ceased.     Against    the    enforcement 

o  o 

of  these  **  technical  rights"  the  United  States 
Government  protested.^^  The  Canadian  posi- 
tion was,  that  the  Fishery  needed  protection, 
especially  against    the    Americans   who    had 


6o  The  Fishery  Qicestion. 

fished  out  their  own  waters ;  that  licenses 
were  discontinued  because  the  Americans  did 
not  care  to  buy  them  ;  that  the  system  of  giv- 
ing warnings  had  to  be  discontinued  as  they 
were  not  regarded,  and  that  it  was  exceed- 
ingly difficult  to  discover  interlopers  in  the 
bays.  Also  that  three-fourths  of  the  mack- 
erel catch  was  taken  within  the  three-mile 
limit,  and  that  the  cost  of  the  cruisers  and 
the  protection  of  the  home  industry  war- 
ranted a  strict  interpretation  and  enforcement 
of  the  convention  of  1818. 

Four  hundred  vessels  were  boarded  for 
transgressing  the  three-mile  limit.  Fifteen 
were  condemned,  and  one  Canadian  cruiser 
spent  the  winter  of  1871  in  the  Bay  of 
Fundy,  thus  saving,  according  to  the  Do- 
minion reports,  fifty  thousand  dollars'  worth 
of  fish  to  the  natives.  Canadian  trade  de- 
clined after  1866  more  rapidly  than  it  had 
increased  during  the  treaty.  A  convention 
of  Canadian  merchants  was  held  with  the 
object  of  finding  an  outlet  for  colonial  prod- 
ucts in  the  West  Indies.^^  The  prospect  was 
not  satisfactory.  Reciprocity  again  became 
the  object  of  the  Dominion  Government. 
There  were  now  a  number  of  claims  waitinor 


The  Fishery   Question.  61 

for  adjustment  between  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States.  By  far  the  most  impor- 
tant were  those  arising  from  the  depredations 
of  the  Alabama  on  American  commerce. 
They  had  become  more  definite  in  conse- 
quence of  their  assumption  by  the  United 
States  Government.  The  Fishery  Question 
offered  a  convenient  excuse  for  a  Joint  High 
Commission.''^ 

One  milHon  dollars  for  the  in-shore  fishery, 
in  perpetuity,  was  offered  by  the  American 
Commissioners  during  the  negotiations  pre- 
ceding the  signing  of  the  treaty  of  Washing- 
ton. Freedom  from  molestation,  rather 
than  the  profit  of  fishing  in-shore,  constituted, 
in  their  opinion,  the  value  of  this  concession. 
The  British  Commissioners  considered  this 
sum  inadequate  and  found  insuperable  objec- 
tions to  the  transfer  of  the  right.  Finally  it 
was  decided  to  admit  the  United  States  to 
the  Fishery  in  consideration  of  the  remission 
of  the  duty  on  Canadian  fish  and  fish  oil,  and 
the  appointment  of  arbitrators  to  assess  the 
value,  if  any,  of  the  British  concession  in  ex- 
cess of  the  American,  which  included  a  free 
fishery  on  the  United  States  coasts,  north  of 
the  thirty-ninth  degree  of  north  latitude. 


62  The  Fishery  Question. 

The  convention  of  1818  was  recognized  as 
the  basis  of  this  understanding.  No  limit 
was  set  to  the  amount  of  a  possible  award. 

One  commissioner  was  to  be  nominated  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  one  by 
Her  Britannic  Majesty,  and  in  case  the  gov- 
ernments were  unable  to  agree  upon  a  third 
within  three  months,  the  nomination  was  to 
be  made  by  the  Austrian  Ambassador  at 
London.  Canada  protested  in  the  first  in- 
stance to  the  nomination  of  any  foreign  rep- 
resentative at  Washington.  The  chairman 
of  the  English  Joint  High  Commission  had 
admitted  the  impropriety  of  the  nomination 
of  the  Belgian  minister  in  particular.  After 
the  lapse  of  the  prescribed  time  and  the  fail- 
ure of  an  attempt  to  renew  the  reciprocity 
treaty  of  1854,  the  nomination  devolved  upon 
the  Austrian  Ambassador,  who  selected  M. 
De  la  Fosse,  Belgian  minister  to  the  United 
States  Government. 

The  pertinacity  shown  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment to  obtain  the  appointment  of  this 
gentleman  was  apparent  throughout  the 
diplomatic  correspondence,  subsequently  pub- 
lished. Had  It  been  generally  known  at  the 
time,  it  is  extremely  improbable   that  either 


The  Fishery  Question,  6 


o 


M.  De  la  Fosse  or  his  government  would 
have  consented  to  the  choice.  The  impro- 
priety of  the  selection  arose  from  the  peculiar 
relations  existing  between  the  Belgian  and 
English  reigning  families.  A  delicate  consid- 
eration, but  none  the  less  real. 

The  commission  met  at  Halifax  in  1877.^^ 
Mr.  Kellogg  represented  the  United  States  ; 
Mr.  Gait,  a  Canadian,  Her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment. M.  De  la  Fosse  acted  as  umpire  at  the 
request  of  both  Powers.  The  discussion  was 
ably  conducted  by  counsel.  The  British  case 
asserted  the  extent  and  value  of  the  in-shore 
Fishery,  the  increase  of  the  American  mack- 
erel fleet,  and  the  privileges,  included  in  the 
abolition  of  the  three-mile  limit,  of  procuring 
bait  and  supplies,  transshipping  fish  and  en- 
gaging Canadian  crews.  Not  a  single  Cana- 
dian fisherman  had  used  the  American  con- 
cession north  of  the  thirty-sixth  degree  of 
latitude,  under  the  treaty  of  1854,  because  it 
was  worth  nothing,  while  three-fourths  of  the 
American  mackerel  were  taken  in  the  British 
waters. 

Besides,  the  value  of  the  in-shore  Fishery 
should  be  estimated  not  by  actual,  but  by  its 
possible   use.      A  million  dollars  a  year  was 


64  The  FisJicry   Question. 

asked  for  the  privilege.  The  American  case 
regarded  the  commission  simply  as  a  refer- 
ence for  an  accountino^.  To  admit  one-fourth 
of  the  American  catch  as  taken  within  the 
limit  was  a  liberal  allowance.  A  liberal  equiv- 
alent was  the  remission  of  duties  on  Canadian 
fish  and  fish  oil,  amounting  to  three  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  dollars  annually.  An 
award  of  five  million,  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars  in  favor  of  Great  Britain  was  rendered 
the  23d  of  November,  1877.  It  was  generally 
felt  to  be  excessive  in  the  United  States  and 
not  to  be  accepted  as  a  permanent  measure  of 
value.  Canadian  opinion  was  to  the  effect 
that  the  United  States  had  the  "  sunny  side  " 
of  the  bargain. 

The  Canadian  premier  was  taken  to  task, 
and  the  treaty  ratified  *'  out  of  respect  for  the 
Empire." 

The  treaty  of  Washington  went  into  opera- 
tion in  1873,  to  continue  in  force  for  ten 
years,  and  to  be  terminated  by  either  party  on 
two  years'  notice.  In  1878  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Relations  reported  that  the 
Halifax  award  be  approved,  and  submitted  a 
bill  providing  for  its  payment.  Mr.  Hamlin, 
the   chairman,    suo-o-ested   that   Great    Britain 


The  Fishery   Question.  65 

might  consent  to  a  reduction  of  the  award,  on 
the  ground  that  the  commission  had  pro- 
ceeded ultra  vires  in  the  consideration  of 
extraneous  matter,  and  on  the  inference  that 
unanimity  was  required  of  the  commissioners 
in  rendering  their  decision.  To  this  report  an 
amendment  was  carried,  providing  that  the 
remission  of  duties  on  Canadian  fish  and  fish 
oil  should  be  repealed  as  soon  as  consistent 
with  articles  XVIII.  and  XXI.  of  the  treaty. 
A  concurrent  resolution  was  then  passed, 
authorizing  the  payment  of  the  award,  if  the 
President  should  consider  that  the  crood  faith 
of  the  Nation  demanded  it.  A  curious  pro- 
viso. In  the  correspondence  that  followed 
between  Mr.  Evarts  and  Lord  Salisbury,  the 
former  resumed  the  crround  taken  in  the 
report  of  the  committee,  and  displayed,  in 
addition,  the  returns  of  the  American  mack- 
erel fishery  for  the  four  years  already  passed 
under  the  treaty,  to  show  that  the  privilege 
was  worth,  at  the  highest  computation,  one 
hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  per 
annum,  or  one  million,  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars  for  twelve  years.  At  a  net  valuation, 
twenty-five  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  or 
S 


66  The  Fishery   Qiiestion. 

three  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  twelve 
years. 

The  award  was  five  million,  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  and  the  duty  remitted  the 
Canadians  four  million,  two  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars.  According  to  the  one  compu- 
tation the  United  States  lost  nine  million, 
four  hundred  thousand  dollars  ;  according  to 
the  other,  ei^ht  million,  two  hundred  thou- 
sand  dollars.  The  United  States  Government 
would  not  press  its  objections  against  the 
deliberate  judgment  of  Great  Britain.  Lord 
Salisbury,  in  reply,  admitted  that  Mr.  Evarts' 
argument  was  powerful,  but  thought  it  capa- 
ble of  refutation.  The  British  Government 
based  their  claim  on  the  award,  as  it  stood. 
To  a  second  communication  from  Mr.  Evarts 
Lord  Salisbury  made  no  reply.  The  award 
was  promptly  paid.'^^ 

During  the  operation  of  the  treaty  Ameri- 
can fishermen  were  on  one  occasion  driven  by 
a  mob  from  the  waters  of  Fortune  Bay,  New- 
foundland, on  the  ground,  as  alleged,  that 
they  were  fishing  on  Sunday,  in  contraven- 
tion of  the  local  statutes.  The  incident 
served  to  accentuate  the  difference  that  is  so 
apt  to  exist  between  the  Imperial  and  Colo- 


The  Fishery   Quest  ion.  67 

nial  interpretation  of  the  fishery  clauses  of  a 
treaty,  as  well  as  to  mark  the  discrepancy 
between  public  and  municipal  law. 

Treaty  obligations  were  acknowledged  to 
be  supreme,  but  the  question  arose  whether 
regulations,  affecting  both  parties  alike,  were 
admissible. 

Lord  Salisbury  took  the  ground,  that  the 
fishery  rights  were  bought  subject  to  existing 
regulations.  Mr.  Evarts  contended  that  in 
such  a  case  the  rights  were  worthless,  and  the 
duty  on  Canadian  fish  should  be  revived  to 
reimburse  the  sufferers  by  this  particular  act 
of  violence.  Lord  Granville,  who  succeeded 
Lord  Salisbury  when  the  liberal  government 
came  in,  conceded  that  local  laws,  in  variance 
with  Imperial  treaty  obligations,  should  be 
repealed  as  a  matter  of  international  obliga- 
tion. 

He  objected  to  the  theory  that  would 
make  American  fishermen  wholly  free  from 
restraints,  and  defined  the  rieht  to  fish  '*  in 
common  "  as  existing  under  reasonable  local 
regulations. 

The  British  Government  paid  seventy- 
five  thousand  dollars  damages  for  the  af- 
fair  at   Fortune   Bay,  and   an   agreement  was 


68  The  Fishery   Question, 

made  for  drafting  rules  in  regard   to  a  close 
season. 

The  United  States  did  not  fail  to  give  due 
notice  of  the  abrogation  of  the  treaty.^  It 
expired  July  i,  in  the  midst  of  the  fishing 
season  of  1885  ;  a  provisional  treaty,  relating  to 
fisheries,  commerce  and  navigation,  arranged 
by  the  English  minister  and  the  United 
States  Government,  having  failed  to  pass  the 
Senate  in  1874.  In  answer  to  a  note  of  the 
English  minister,  communicated  in  October, 
1883,  proposing  a  revision  of  the  treaty,  and 
recalling  the  allusion  in  President  Arthur's 
message  to  the  appointment  of  a  commission, 
Secretary  Frelinghuysen  had  replied  to  Mr. 
West  in  July,  1884,  that  action  might  better 
be  postponed  until  the  next  meeting  of  Con- 
gress. The  correspondence  between  Secre- 
tary Bayard  and  Mr.  West  covers  the  period 
from  March  12  to  June  22,  1885,  and  terminated 
in  a  temporary  diplomatic  arrangement, 
whereby  the  privileges  of  the  recent  treaty 
were  continued  to  American  fishermen  during 
the  year.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  under- 
stood that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
should  recommend  to  Congress  a  Joint  Com- 
mission "  affording  a  prospect  of  development 


The  Fishery  Question.  69 

and  extension  of  trade  between  the  United 
States  and  British  North  America."  It  was 
also  promised  that  no  hmit  should  be  set 
to  the  proposals  to  be  brought  forward  by 
either  party  in  the  commission  suggested. '°° 

Whatever  steps  had  been  taken  by  the 
United  States  Government,  looking  to  the 
appointment  of  a  commission,  were  brought  to 
a  standstill  by  the  influence  of  the  American 
fishing  interest  upon  Congressional  action. 

Consequently  the  temporary  arrangement 
for  the  season  of  1885,  proceeding  from  the 
good-will  of  the  two  governments,  and  find- 
ing a  precedent  in  1871,  has  not  had  the  de- 
sired effect  of  avoiding  misunderstanding. '°' 
Canada  considered  that  she  had  given  valua- 
ble privileges  for  nothing,  besides  facing  a 
duty  of  one  per  cent,  a  pound  on  prepared 
fish,  levied  in  the  interest  of  an  American 
monopoly.  The  concession,  in  spite  of  all  past 
experience,  may  also,  in  some  quarters,  have 
raised  hopes  of  an  indefinite  postponement  of 
any  return  to  the  state  of  things  existing  be- 
fore the  treaty  of  1873.  In  the  present  atti- 
tude of  the  Dominion  and  Imperial  govern- 
ments there  is  nothing  unusual.  Citizens  of 
the   United  States  and  subjects  of  Her  Brit- 


yo  The  Fishery   Quesfi 


o?i. 


annic  Majesty  can  find  little  satisfaction  in  the 
recent  developments,  except  that  the  ques- 
tions raised  are  still  within  the  limits  of  ra- 
tional and  legal  discussion.  To  this  result  the 
attitude  of  the  government  at  Washington 
has  certainly  contributed. 

Several  American  fishing  vessels  were 
seized  by  "  cruisers  "  during  the  season  of 
1886.  A  few  were  fined.  One  is  still  in  cus- 
tody and  one  has  been  condemned  and  sold 
under  circumstances  that  probably  entitle  her 
owners  to  damages.  In  more  than  one  hun- 
dred instances  there  have  been  complaints  of 
interference  by  Canadian  officials.  Corre- 
spondence between  the  United  States  and  the 
Imperial  Government  has  been  constant. '°^ 
Throughout  it  occurs,  like  a  refrain,  the  dip- 
lomatic formula  of  the  English  minister, 
resident  at  Washington,  having  the  honor  to 
acknowledge  the  notes  from  the  Department 
of  State  and  referrinof  their  contents  to  the 
Foreign  Office.  The  Imperial  Government, 
while  obviously  anxious  to  avoid  difficulty 
with  the  United  States,  has  practically 
adopted  the  Canadian  defence  of  Canadian 
action,  and  cites,  in  justification,  not  only  the 
Convention   of  18 18,  the  Act  59,  George   III., 


The  Fishery  Qtiestzoji.  71 

and  the  "  British  North  American  Act,"  but 
also  legislation,  having  its  inception  in  the 
Dominion  Parliament,  of  ever  -  increasing 
stringency,  culminating,  during  the  past  year, 
in  an  act  evidently  proposed  to  cover  recent 
seizures  and  waiting  Royal  assent  until  No- 
vember last.  The  effect  of  all  this  activity, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  latest  circulars 
issued  to  the  Dominion  custom-houses,  has 
been  a  most  technical  interpretation  of  the 
Convention,  the  denial  of  any  commercial 
riorhts    to    American    fishermen    in    Canadian 

o 

ports  and  the  assumption  by  the  Dominion 
Government  of  competency  to  decide  on  the 
validity  of  permits  to  "  touch  and  trade," 
issued  by  an  official  properly  qualified  under 
the  laws  of  the  United  States.  This  attitude 
is  explained  by  a  statement  of  the  practice 
of  the  Dominion  Parliament  to  make  enact- 
ments for  the  protection  of  the  Fishery,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  home  govern- 
ment, an  assertion  of  the  authority  of  Cana- 
dian officials,  whether  their  instructions 
emanate  from  the  Queen,  or  from  her  repre- 
sentative, the  Governor  General,  and  a  refer- 
ence to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  vice-admiralty 
courts,  with  an  appeal  to  the   Imperial   Privy 


72  '1  lie  Fishery   Question, 

Council.  The  Qreneral  extension  of  commer- 
cial  relations  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  is  acknowledged,  and  it  is  even 
intimated  that  a  larger  freedom  is  desired. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  objected  that  were  the 
Canadian  ports  to  become  the  base  of  opera- 
tions for  American  fishermen,  under  cover  of 
commerce,  the  Convention  of  1818  would,  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  be  repealed  by  the 
use  of  ''  touch  and  trade "  permits.  The 
United  States  Government  has  repeatedly 
and  emphatically  protested  against  the  recent 
seizures  and  detentions,  and  through  its  min- 
ister at  the  Court  of  St.  James  denies  that 
any  laws  exist  authorizing  these  outrages. 
Moreover,  were  such  laws  extant  they  could 
not  be  invoked  in  a  technical  spirit,  unworthy 
of  sovereign  and  friendly  nations.  Mr.  Phelps 
also  maintains  that  the  gradual  extension 
of  commercial  privileges  now  expressly  re- 
quires that  each  party  shall  allow  to  the 
vessels  of  the  other  in  her  ports  the  same 
facilities  of  trade  as  are  permitted  to  her  own 
shipping.  Finally,  as  for  the  vice-admiralty 
courts,  the  question  raised  is  not  at  all  one  of 
individual  rights,  but  of  international  obliga- 
tion, therefore  Dominion  courts  have  here  no 


The  FisJici-y   Question. 


/  o 


jurisdiction.  The  subject  is  for  the  consider- 
ation of  the  representatives  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Imperial  governments.  It  is 
well  understood  that  the  American  interest 
does  not  claim  the  riorht  to  fish  within  the  three- 
mile  limit,  except  in  the  localities  reserved  by 
treaty. '°3  The  opinion  expressed  is  to  the 
effect  that  the  concession  is  not  of  sufficient 
value  to  justify  an  enlightened  selfishness  in 
remitting  the  duty  on  Canadian  fish,  not  to 
mention  any  extensive  measure  of  reciproc- 
ity. The  area  outside,  where  the  right  is 
unquestionable,  is  abundantly  sufficient,  owing 
to  the  use  of  the  purse  seine.  In  spite,  there- 
fore, of  various  theories  affirming  that  the 
mackerel  hibernate  on  the  Canadian  coasts, 
or  are  kept  in-shore  by  the  influence  of  Arctic 
currents  and  acknowledging  the  capricious- 
ness  of  the  fish,'°+  none  of  the  American 
fleet  have  been  seized  during  the  past  year, 
while  actually  fishing,  and  in  only  two  in- 
stances for  a  technical  attempt  to  fish.  In 
almost  every  case  the  seizure  has  been  com- 
plicated by  a  constructive  evasion  of  the  cus- 
toms laws.  While  the  United  States  Minis- 
ter characterizes  the  strict  interpretation  of 
the    Convention  of    1818   as   ''preposterous," 


74  The  Fishery   Question. 

the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  admit- 
ting the  resemblance  between  the  customs 
laws  of  the  two  countries,  reports  that  the 
behavior  of  the  Dominion  collectors  has 
been  '' brutal." '°^  Since  1823  the  Presidents 
have  had  the  power  to  discriminate  against 
foreign  vessels  in  regard  to  charges  and 
duties  In  the  ports  of  the  United  States. 
On  the  27th  of  May,  1886,  Congress  added 
the  suspension,  at  discretion,  of  commercial 
intercourse.  This  has  not  been  invoked. 
On  the  contrary,  the  conduct  of  the  United 
States  was  magnanimous. '°^  The  government 
may  well  have  hesitated,  in  the  interest  of 
its  own  citizens,  to  lay  an  embargo  upon 
trade.  The  serious  questions  of  veracity  be- 
tween ship-masters  and  Canadian  officials 
were  of  themselves  enouorh  to  recommend 
caution. '°7 

During  the  last  session  of  Congress  two 
bills  of  a  quasi-retaliatory  nature  were  con- 
sidered.'°^  The  one  originating  in  the  House 
might  have  prohibited  not  only  all  commercial 
relations  with  Canada,  but  even  the  entry  of 
the  rolling  stock  of  Canadian  railways.  To 
this  strict  quarantine  the  Committee  of  the 
Senate    objected,   and    proposed    to    directly 


The  Fishery   Question.  75 

menace  only  that  portion  of  American  and 
Canadian  trade  that  is  carried  on  in  Canadian 
vessels.  The  House  having  shown  a  disposi- 
tion to  insist  upon  its  own  bill,  there  was  a 
possibility  for  a  while  that  all  action  would 
be  suspended.  What  is  virtually  the  Senate 
bill  was  ultimately  enacted.  Compared  with 
the  measure  of  the  previous  year,  it  increases 
the  absolutism  of  the  President  over  the  oc- 
cupations and  fortunes  of  persons  engaged  in 
trade  between  the  United  States  and  Canada- 
It  assumes  interpretation  of  treaty  rights  and 
the  efficacy  of  *'  touch-and-trade "  permits  in 
giving  a  commercial  character  to  a  fishing 
vessel ;  claims  for  all  such  vessels  the  same 
treatment  that  is  accorded  to  ''the  most 
favored  nation,"  and  makes  it  the  duty  of  the 
President — at  his  discretion,  and  when  he 
shall  be  satisfied  of  the  infraction  of  any  of 
the  rights  in  question — to  deny  to  the  vessels 
of  the  British  Dominions  of  North  America, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  any  entrance  into  the 
waters  or  ports  of  the  United  States,  except 
in  cases  of  distress,  and  to  prohibit  the  entry 
of  fresh  and  salt  fish  or  any  other  product  of 
the  said  Dominions,  or  coming  from  them, 
into  the  territory  of  the  United  States.'"^ 


76  The  Fishery  Qtiestt07z. 

The  general  objection  to  all  such  legislation 
is  that  Congress  should  take  the  responsibility 
of  reirulatino:  trade,  and  not  foist  its  consti- 
tutional  duties  upon  the  executive.  Powers 
of  this  kind,  though  not  to  this  degree,  have 
been  granted  before.  It  is  questionable 
whether  they  were  ever  successful  in  com- 
passing the  end  proposed. 

The  particular  objections  to  this  measure 
arise  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 
One  hundred  years  ago  the  Fishery  was  the 
principal  industry  of  the  North  Atlantic  sea- 
board ;  now  it  is  an  inconsiderable  factor 
among  the  industries  of  New  England,  and 
an  infinitesimal  one  in  the  business  of  the 
whole  country.  It  would  be  fairer  to  say  that 
in  the  maritime  provinces  of  Canada  alone 
the  condition  of  the  Fishery  is  the  measure  of 
prosperity. "°  The  capital  Invested  in  the 
New  England  Fisheries  Is  estimated  at  $19,- 
937,607,'"  and  the  annual  value  of  the  catch 
at  $4,590,000.  The  Canadians,  with  a  capital 
of  $6,697,459  obtain  an  annual  product  of 
$17,722,973.'"  During  the  year  1886,  out  of 
a  total  Import  and  export  trade  of  $69,449,462 
between  the  United  States  and  Canada,  the 
total  value  of  Canadian  fish  involved,  includ- 


The  Fishery  QiLestion.  yy 

ing  fresh  fish  not  liable  to  duty,  was  $2,390,- 
393,  a  ratio  of  3}^  per  cent."^  If  the  special 
mention  in  the  Retaliation  Act  of  a  possible 
prohibition  of  Canadian  fresh  fish  has  more 
than  a  passing  significance,  the  statistics  will 
give  an  idea  of  the  relative  value  of  the  traffic 
at  which  this  extraordinary  measure  is  di- 
rected. It  has  been  recently  pointed  out  that 
our  importation  of  eggs  from  Canada  exceeds 
our  importation  of  dutiable  fish  by  nearly 
$800,000,  and  nearly  equals  our  importation 
of  all  kinds  of  fish."*  Without  endeavoring 
to  estimate  the  derangement  of  general  trade 
suggested  by  the  act,  and  remembering  that 
a  Canadian  authority  has  estimated  the  bal- 
ance from  1872  to  1882  at  $153,827,937  in 
favor  of  the  United  States,"-'  it  can  be  seen 
that  the  aggregate  tonnage  engaged  between 
American  and  Canadian  ports  is  not  second  to 
that  employed  in  our  trade  with  England."^ 
Canada  may  be  permitted  to  wonder  that 
reciprocity  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico  is  not  believed  to  be  impossible,  when 
the  whole  volume  of  our  trade  with  the 
southern  hemisphere  for  three  years  past 
amounts  to  $122,330,607  against  $121,321,378 
with  her  alone.  "^    The  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 


y^  The  Fishery   Question. 

ury  has  informed  the  House  that  the  govern- 
ment may  lose  in  duties  now  paid  by  Cana- 
dian goods,  $4,476,900  per  annum. "^  Estimat- 
ed on  the  basis  of  the  annual  New  England 
catch,  this  is  equivalent  to  a  bounty  of  almost 
100  per  cent.,  and  is  nearly  as  much  as  was 
paid  for  all  the  privileges  claimed  during  the 
twelve  years  of  the  treaty  abrogated  in  1885. 
Certainly,  if  the  provisions  of  this  act  be 
applied  to  anything  but  the  fish  trade,  it  may 
be  anticipated  that  much  misrepresentation, 
loose  statement,  and  manufactured  excitement 
will  wither  in  the  flame  of  interested  opposi- 
tion. If  used  only  to  prohibit  Canadian  fish, 
the  price  will  probably  advance  while  the  de- 
mand declines,  as  was  the  case  last  year."^ 
Yet  the  Fishery,  though  a  small  thing,  is  our 
own.  It  has  a  right  to  expect  proper  encour- 
agement and  support.  Why  should  the  dis- 
cussion be  limited  to  one  class  of  expedients  ? 
It  is  not  at  all  sure  that  the  difficulty  can  be 
as  well  met  by  retaliation  on  Canada  as  by 
revision  of  our  own  tariff.  How-orreat  a  bur- 
den  this  imposes  on  all  fishing  ought  to  be 
calculated.  Whether  it  fosters  the  industry 
may  be  doubted,  when  that  small  portion  of 
it,    represented    by    the     ''sardine"     packing 


The  Fishery   Question.  79 

houses  of  Eastport,  capitalized  at  $1,000,000, 
has  paid  in  one  year  $50,000  duty  on  tin 
plate. '^''  Few  people  are  fitted  by  habit  or 
occupation  to  form  a  conception  of  the  mag- 
nificent courage  that  mans  the  boats  for  ''  the 
Georges  "  or  drops  anchor  among  a  fleet  on 
the  banks. '^'  It  is  the  qualities  required 
amonof  the  workers  at  this  business,  and  not 
their  gains,  that  single  them  out  for  admira- 
tion. The  difference  now  existing  between 
the  wholesale  and  retail  price  of  fish  is  from 
100  to  200  per  cent.'^^  This  discrepancy  is  of 
no  benefit  to  the  catcher.  If  neither  he  nor 
the  consumer  are  to  be  considered,  but  some 
one  else,  then  not  only  is  the  sympathy  of  the 
public  alienated  by  retaliation,  but  the  en- 
deavor to  ascertain  how  an  important  article 
of  food  may  become  more  abundant  and  less 
expensive  will  be  quickened.  What  are  our 
rights,  guaranteed  by  an  arrangement  framed 
before  the  recognition  of  the  mackerel  fishery, 
and  signed  in  1818,  the  same  year  that  the 
United  States  laid  an  embargo,  at  a  time  when 
our  commercial  relations  with  Great  Britain 
have  been  characterized  as  "mediaeval?" 
Where  is  the  treaty  to  modify  these  hard  con- 
ditions  and,  especially,  where    is    the    *'  most 


8o  The  Fishery   Qicestion, 

favored  nation  "  clause  ?  Are  not  the  procla- 
mations cited'^3  in  the  nature  of  mutual  con- 
cessions on  both  sides,  and  liable  to  be  revoked 
whenever  either  party  sees  fit  to  adopt  so 
mistaken  a  policy?  If,  as  the  Senate  report 
says,  the  exclusion  of  Canadian  vessels  from 
the  ports  of  the  United  States  is  not  deroga- 
tory to  treaty  obligations,  is  a  strict  enforce- 
ment of  the  Convention  of  1818  absolutely 
unjustifiable?  Have  we  not  refused  to  pay 
for  some  of  these  concessions  on  the  ground 
of  their  uncertainty  ?  Is  the  distinction 
drawn  by  Canada  insupportable  when  our 
own  law,  placing  Canadian  fishermen  and 
traders  on  the  same  footing,  dates  from  June 
last?'^^  What  authority  that  both  parties 
are  bound  to  respect,  has  decided  that  Cana- 
dian port  privileges  are  accessory  to  deep-sea 
fishing  rights?  The  Dominion  is  not  tracta- 
ble, as  the  Imperial  Government  knows — very 
likely  to  its  sorrow.  In  the  midst  of  this 
trouble,  Canada  has  undergone  a  general  elec- 
tion, and  the  methods  of  its  government  for 
the  protection  of  the  fisheries  have  been  sus- 
tained. The  Provinces  are  playing  a  danger- 
ous game.      Should  retaliation  take  its  course 


The  Fishery   Question.  8i 

their    sufferings    would    begin    at    once    and 
would  be  out  of  proportion  to  ours. 

If  their  wishes  are  considered  by  the 
United  States  it  will  be  in  spite  of,  rather 
than  because  of,  some  recent  performances. 
This  is  perhaps  the  reason  why,  after  all  the 
reiteration  of  the  fact  that  an  adjustment 
belongs  to  representatives  of  the  United 
States  and  the  home  governments,  the 
Dominion  is  recoo^nized  and  selected  to  bear 
the  brunt  of  non-intercourse.  The  voices 
that  have  cried  war,  if  they  were  serious,  have 
not  been  taken  seriously.  Granted  that  the 
United  States  have  the  right  to  abrogate  the 
Convention  of  1818,  the  proposition  that  the 
Fishery  of  1 783  would  thus  revive,  whatever 
force  there  may  be  in  the  theory,  is  practically 
as  improbable  as  that  England  might  abro- 
gate the  latter  treaty  and  claim  us  as  subjects 
of  George  III.  An  abrogation,  in  the  light 
of  experience,  would  place  our  fishermen 
where  they  were  in  181 7,  worse  off  than 
they  are  to-day,  for  our  negotiators  at  that 
time  secured  an  extensive  acknowledgment 
of  our  rights  to  the  in-shore  cod  fishery. 
Another  ad  i7ite7^ivi  arrangement  is  under- 
stood to  be  contemplated.  It  can  hardly  be 
6 


82  The  Fishery   Question, 

useful  unless  it  contains  not  onl)-  the  promise 
but  the  potency  of  a  new  treaty  or  an  Inter- 
national Commission. 

The  Importance  of  fairness  in  attempting 
a  solution  becomes  evident  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  the  relations  of  the  rival  interests 
vary  with  every  phase  of  development  on  the 
North-east  Coast  ;  with  every  new  method  of 
catchinor  fish  ;  with  the  fluctuations  of  markets 
and  the  possibilities  of  speculation.  The 
fishermen  are  of  the  same  race  and  have  many 
characteristics  in  common.  A  proportion  of 
them  may  be  found  under  one  flag  or  the 
other,  as  the  conditions  favor  the  United 
States  or  Canada.  The  unfriendliness  of  de- 
priving a  neighboring  country  of  a  natural 
market  for  Its  products,  and  the  right  of  a 
nation  to  protect  any  or  all  of  its  industries, 
provoke  passionate  discussion  of  purely  eco- 
nomic theories,  wherein  active  politics  often 
denies  facts  and  forces  the  Interpretation  of 
treaties.  The  nature  of  the  connection  be- 
tween England  and  her  colony,  with  its  party 
lines  strongly  defined  on  both  sides  of  the 
Atlantic,  Is  germane  to  the  subject,  as  well  as 
the  necessity  of  reforming  the  present  trian- 
o^ular   relations  between    the    United  States, 


The  Fishery  Question.  83 

Great  Britain  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada. 
The  whole  sio^nificance  of  laws  affecting  the 
commercial  intercourse  of  the  two  nations  is 
in  doubt,  and  the  assessment  of  damages  for 
recent  ex  parte  interference  must  be  consid- 
ered. 

The  solicitude  in  some  quarters,  lest  no 
representatives  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  would  be  sufficiently  competent  or  de- 
voted to  maintain  the  best  interests  of  their 
country,  is  unworthy.  It  is  not  warranted  by 
the  history  of  our  diplomacy,  or  generally 
believed.  Its  reiteration  is  a  trifle  suspicious. 
Even  the  Halifax  award  had  its  Alabama  sur- 
plus. 

Canada  will  not  be  expected  to  voluntarily 
submit  to  become  an  inland  State  by  the 
seces.sion  of  her  maritime  provinces.  The 
idea  of  a  peaceable  annexation  of  all  Canada 
might  find  its  realization  in  the  fullest  reci- 
procity,— and  reciprocity  on  the  condition 
that  Canada  adopt  our  tariff  against  the  rest 
of  the  world,  is  distinctly  annexation.  The 
Fishery  Question,  always  annoying,  becomes 
occasionally  intolerable  and  forces  an  adjust- 
ment. It  is  to  be  hoped,  in  reason,  that  we 
are   to  have  one  this  year.      If  possible,   one 


84  The  Fishery   Qicestion. 

that  may  last  longer  than  its  predecessors. 
Both  the  Imperial  and  the  Dominion  govern- 
ments must  now  understand  that  the  fullest 
commercial  privileges  to  our  fishermen  in 
Canadian  ports,  is  the  real  point  to  be  con- 
ceded. On  the  other  hand,  the  large  and 
true  policy  announced  by  the  President,'^^- 
and  a  growing  disposition  in  the  community 
to  listen  to  both  sides,  are  signs  of  the  best 
augury.  A  new  treaty,  based  on  a  compre- 
hensive understanding  of  the  situation  in 
the  United  States  and  in  Canada,  need 
not  necessarily  be  preceded  by  an  Interna- 
tional Commission.  Should,  however,  an 
International  Commission  seem  to  afford  the 
best  opportunity  for  an  adequate  discussion 
of  the  whole  subject,  it  would  be  an  act  of 
doubtful  patriotism  for  either  side,  to  insist  on 
less  efficient  methods. 


REFERENCES. 


1.  ♦'  Narrative  and  Critical  Hist,  of  Am./'  ed.  Winsor,  Vol.  2. 

2.  Charlevoix  ;    Shea's  Trans.,  Vol.  2. 

3.  Bury ;  "  Exodus  of  the  Western  Nations." 

4.  Collection  of  Mass.  Hist.  Soc,  2d  Series,  Vol.  2. 

5.  De  Circourt ;     "  Hist,  de   I'Action   Commune   de   la  France," 

etc.     Vol.  3. 

6.  Coll.  Maine  Hist.  Soc,  Vol.  2. 

7.  Sabine  ;  Rep.  on  the  Fisheries. 

8.  Kirke's  "  Conquest  of  Canada." 

9.  Garneau;  "  Hist,  de  Canada." 

ID.  Laet;  "Hist,   de  I'Amerique."     Doyle;  "English   Colonies  in 
Am."     "  Sable  Island,"  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist.  Feb.,  1886. 

11.  Lescarbot. 

12.  Heriot's  Canada. 

13.  Miles,  H.  H. ;  "  Hist,  of  Canada  under  French  Regime." 

14.  Warburton;  "  Conquest  of  Canada." 

15.  Hildreth;  "Hist,  of  U.  S.,"  Vol.  i.,  p.  115. 

16.  Payne,  E.  J. ;  "  Voyages  of  Elizabethan  Seamen." 

17.  Anspach's  "  Hist,  of  Newfoundland." 
iS.  Seeley's  "  Expansion  of  England." 

19.  Kohl,  J.  G. ;  •'  Hist,  of  Discovery  of  Maine." 

20.  Kirke ;  quoting  Domestic  Corresp.  of  Elizabeth. 

21.  Oldys;  Am.  Annals. 

22.  "  Letter  of  London  Merchant  to  Friend  at  Tunbridge  Wells." 

23.  Kirke;  quoting  Colonial  Papers  and  Dom.  Corresp.  James  T. 

24.  Babson,  J.  J. ;  "  Hist,  of  Gloucester."  J.  J.  Rantoul ;     "  The 

Cod  in  Mass.  Hist."     Field  Papers  of  Essex  Institute. 

25.  Minot;  "  Hist,  of  Mass.  Bay." 

26.  Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc,    V.  28,  p.  98. 

27.  "Memoirs  of  Sir  William  Temple,"  Vol.  i.,  p.  216. 

85 


86  References. 

28.  Rameau  ;  "  La  Fiance  aux  Colonies." 

29.  Kirke  ;  quoting  Interregnum  Book. 

30.  Doyle;  p.  224.     "  Political  Hist.,"  V.  3,  p.  1374.,  ed.  1808. 

31.  "  Actes,   Memoirs,"    etc.;    Freschot.     "  Diplomatisches  Hand- 

buch ;  "  Ghillany.  "  Entdeckungs  Geschichte  ;  "  V.  Noorden. 
"  Memoirs  de  Torcy." 

32.  Collins;  "  Bolingbroke — An  Historical  Study." 

Bolingbroke's  Corresp. 
^■^.     Murdoch;  "  Hist,  of  Nova  Scotia."* 

34.  Bollan's ;  "  Antient  Right  of  Br.  Nation  to  Am.  Fisheries." 

35.  Auchmunty.   "  Importance  of  Cape  Breton  to  Eng.  Nation." 

36.  Life  and  Works  of  Franklin  ;     Sparks. 

2;].  Wolcott's  Journal  in  Coll.  Conn.  Hist.  Soc,  V.  i.,  p.  156. 

38.  Corresp.  of  Duke  of  Bedford,  V.  i.,  p.  xviii. 

39.  Bussy's  "Private  Memoir  to  Eng.  Ministry." 

40.  New   York  Coll.  of  MSS.,  V.    10,   p.    15.     Smith's  "  Hist,  of 

Canada."  Williamson's  "  Maine,"  V.  2,  p.  216.  Coll.  Quebec 
Hist.  Soc.  1838,  p. 82.     Parkman;  "  Wolfe  and  Montcalm." 

41.  Marten's  "  Recueil  de  Traites." 

42.  Corresp.  of  Duke  of  Bedford,  V.  3,  pp.  xvii — 121. 

43.  Kahn.  Vol.  i.,  p.  264. 

44.  Franklin's  Letters.  Pamphlet  by  W.  (or  E.)  Burke. 

45.  Coll.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc,  1801,  p.  202. 

46.  Franklin's  Examination  before  Com.  of  House  of  Commons. 

47.  Almon's  "  Remembrancer,"  and  "  Prior  Documents." 

48.  W.Bradford.  *' Biographical  Notices."     P.  229. 

49.  Marshall's  "Am.  Colonies,"  p.  355. 

50.  "Life of  Patrick  Henry;"   Sparks.     Sec.  Journals  of  Cong. 
^I.  Diplomatic  Corresp.  of  Revolution,  ed.  Sparks. 

52.  De    Circourt;     Fiske ;     "Results  of  Cornwall's     Surrender.'' 

Atlantic  Moil. ^]2s\.,  1886.  Fitzmaurice  ;  "  Life  of  Shelburne." 
Jay's  "  Life  of  Jay."  Private  Corresp.  of  Franklin;  W.  T. 
Franklin.  "  F'ranklin  in  France."  E.  E.Hale  and  E.  E. 
Hale,  Jr.  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams ;  Adams.  Lee  ; 
MS.  Harvard  University  Library. 

53.  "  Treaties  and  Conventions  bet.  U.  S.  and  other  Powers,"  309-14. 

"  The  Fisheries  Dispute  ;"  Jay.  "  Diary  of  John  Adams," 
V.  3,  p.  333.  "  Rep.  on  the  Questions,"  etc.  Anglo-Am. 
Association.    1S71. 


Refcrc7iccs.  8  7 

54.  Journals  of  Cong.    Austin's  "  Life  of  Gerry."     Pitkin ;"  Hist. 

of  U.   S.,"  V.   2,  p.  35,  note.     Bancroft;  "Hist,    of   U.    S.," 
Vol.  10,  p.  177. 

55.  Harvey  and  Hatton  ;  "  Newfoundland  the  Oldest   Br.  Colony." 

Morris;    "Fisheries  of     Newfoundland."       "Newfoundland 
Banks."     Harper^ s  M.,  V.  20,  p.  45. 

56.  Murdock.     "  Hist,  of  Nova  Scotia,"  V.  2,  pp.  548-56. 

57.  Jones  ;  "  Hist,  of  N.  Y."  ed.  Delancy. 

58.  "  Old  Documents  in  Regard  to  Halifax."  T.  B.  Atkins. 

59.  "Considerations  on  the  Sovereignty  of  New  Ireland;"  Aitken  ; 

Phil.  1780. 

60.  Jefferson's  Rep.   ist.  Cong.,  2d.  Session. 

61.  Benton's  "  Thirty  Years' View."    V.  2,  p.  194. 

62.  Babson.    Sabine. 

63.  Pari.    Debates.      Canning's    Speeches.      Ex.    Doc.     100,   July, 

1S52. 

64.  Writings  of  Gallatin,  ed.  H.  Adams,  V.  i.,  p.  645. 

65.  Br.  and  For.  State  Papers,  V.  2,  1171. 

66.  Lyman;  "Hist.  Am.  Diplomacy,"  Vol.   i.,  p.  176.     Trescott's 

"  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution." 

67.  Annual  Register,  1783,  p.  162. 

68.  De  Circourt,  Vol.    3.     De  Flassan  ;  ''  Hist,   de    la  Diplomatic 

Francaise." 

69.  Heffter,  Droit  Int.  Pub.,  §75.     Wheaton;  Pt.  2,  §  177. 

70.  Schuyler's  "Am.  Diplomacy,"  p.  406. 

71.  Am.  Law  Review,  V.  5,  426. 

72.  Woolsey;  "Elements  of  Int.  Law." 

73.  Letters  and  dispatches  of  Lord  Castlereagh,  V.  10,  p.  431. 

74.  Writings  of  Gallatin,  V.  2,  p.  83. 

75.  Br.  and  For.  State  Papers,  7-162.     "  Memoirs  of  a  Residence 

at  the  Court  of  London,"  C.  Rush. 

76.  Senator   Tuck,   quoted    by   Leggo.    Scotiish   Rro.,  Nov.,  1886. 

Annual  Rep.   Bureau  of  Statistics  on  Commerce,  etc.,  1885-6, 
p.  908. 

77.  Writings  of  Gallatin,  V.  2,  p.  83.  Gallatin's  Rep.  8th  Cong.,  ist. 

Sess.  Rush,  1-388. 

78.  North  Am.  Rev.,  Mar.,  1886. 

79.  59,  George  HI.,  c.  38. 

80.  Harper's  Mag.,  V.  18,  p.  674. 


88  References. 

8i.     Rep.  of  Com.  i8th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Ex.  Doc.   100.     Laws  of 
Nova  Scotia,  c.  10. 

82.  Revenue  Laws  of  U.  S.     Kent's  Comm.  1-311.     Cranch  Rep.  2, 

187.  Application  of  Br.  Fisherman  of  Bahamas  to  U.  S. 
Gov.,  1830. 

83.  Wheaton's  "  Elements  of  Int.  Law,"  ed.  Dana,  p.  262. 

84.  Martin's  "  Nova  Scotia  and  Cape  Breton." 
85-     30-31 »  Victoria,  c.  45. 

86.  Ridgeway  ;  Soule's  speech,  1852. 

87.  Files  of  London  Times,  1853-4. 

88.  Works  of  Daniel  Webster,    Vol.  2,  p.  467. 

89.  "Reminiscences,"  Olyphant ;     Blackwood's  M.,  h.Vig,,\^^(i. 

90.  Am.  State  Pap.,  V.  4,  p.  352.     Harp.  A/.,  V.  g,  p.  674.     "  Trea- 

ties and  Conventions,"  p.  ^^2- 

91.  Am.  State  Pap.     "  Twenty  Years  in  Congress,"  J.  G.   Blaine. 

Derby's.  Rep.  on  Reciprocity  Treaty. 

92.  "Neutrality  of  Gr.  Br.  during  Am.  War."    M.  Bernard.     Life 

of  W.  H.  Seward.  Vol.  5. 

93.  "  The  Last  Forty  Years,"  J.  C.  Dent.     N.Am.   Review,   Mar., 

1885.  Canadian  Year  Books. 

94.  "  Diplomatic  Relations  of  U.  S.  Gov.,"  1870,  p.  407. 

95.  Halifax  Chronicle.     Cape  Ann  Advertiser. 

96.  Mr.  Rose's  Mission. 

97.  Br.  Doc.  1878,  Lxxx.    R.  D.  Cutts'Rep.   Baird's  Rep.    N.  Am. 

Rev.,V.  128,  I.     "  Fisheries  Award,"  2d  Ses.  45,  Cong.  3  Vols.. 

98.  Blake's   Opinion.    Blaine's  "  Twenty   Years."    Files  of  N.  Y. 

Herald,  1878.    Nation,  V.  26,  pp.  175,  366,  Vol.  27,  pp.  278,  293. 

99.  Canadian  Sessional  Reports,  Ottawa.    Rep.  of  Dep.  of  Trade 

and  Fisheries.  Trade  and  Naval  Returns.  Rep.  on  Fishery, 
W.  F.  Whittaker.  Ottawa,  1870.  Proceedings  of  Royal  Col- 
onial Institute.  Br.  Fisheries  Directory,  1884.  "  The  Fisher- 
ies;"    C.F.Williams. 

100.  Dip.  Rel.  U.  S.  Gov.  1884-5-6. 

loi.    The  Forum,  Vol.  2,  p.  2.     Fortnightly  JRev.,  Mar.,  1887. 

102.  49th  Cong.  2d  Sess.  H.  of  Rep.,  rep.  4087. 

103.  J.   W.  Collins,  in  Century  Mag.,  Oct.,    1886.    Science,   Feb.    5, 

1886.  Westminster  Rev.,  A^^r.,  1886.  Storer ;  "Hist,  of 
Fisheries  of  Mass."  Fisherman's  "  Memorial  and  Record 
Book,"  Gloucester. 


References.  89 

104.  U.  S.  Com.  of  Fish  and  Fisheries.     Sec.  i,  Washington,  1884. 

"  Effect  of  Fishing  Clauses  of  T.  of  Washington."  H.  Y.  Hind. 
Baird's  Letters.  Goode's  Rep.  Harper' s  Mag.,  Vol.  9,  p.  674  ; 
Vol.  12,  p.  50;    Vol.  60,  p.  284. 

105.  Letter  of  Sec.  Manning  to  House  Com.    of  For.  Affairs,    Feb. 

S,  1887. 

106.  Case  of  "  The  Sisters,"     Sec.  17,  act  85,  1886. 

107.  49th  Cong.  2d  Ses.,  Ex.  Doc.  153. 

108.  49th  Cong.,  2d  Ses.,  House  of  Rep.  Repts.,  3647-3648. 

109.  "  An  Act  to  authorize  the  Pres.  to  protect  and  defend  the  in- 

terests of  Am.  fishing  vessels,"    Public,  125,  1887. 
no.    Scottish  Rezi.^dLXi^A^^-].     Fortnightly  Rev.,   Mar.,   1887.     Com- 
mercial Relations  of  U.  S.,  Pt.  2,  p.  629. 

111.  Spofford's  Am.  Almanack.     Annual   Rep.    of  Am.    Fish  Bu- 

reau. Gloucester,  Mass.,  1887.  Statement  prepared  for  Treas. 
Dep.  1887. 

112.  Idem. 

113.  Bradstreef  s  Reports,  Jan.  29,  1887. 

114.  Natiott,Y€^.  3,  1887. 

115.  N.  Y.  Herald,   Feb.  i,  1887. 

116.  Rep.  Bureau  of  Com.  Statistics,  Washington,  1886. 

117.  New  Yorker  Staats  Zeitung,  22d  Jan.  1887. 

118.  Letter  of  Sec.  of  Treas.  quoted.     House  Rep.  49th  Cong.,  2d 

Ses.  3647. 

119.  Bradstreef  s,  Jan.  8,  1887. 

120.  Bradstreef  s,  Aug.  28,  1886. 

121.  Hepworth's  "  Starboard  and  Port." 

122.  Rep.  Am.  Fish  Bureau,  p.  20. 

123.  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  4,  p.  817. 

124.  House  Rep.  4687,  p.  16. 

125.  Letter  of  the  Pres.  to  Mr.  Steele,  Apr.  7,  1887. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  G.  P.  PUTXAM'S  SOXS. 

France  under  Mazarin.     By  James  Breck  Perkins.     With  a   Sketch 
of    the   Administration    of   Richelieu.      With   photogravure    portraits 
of  Mazarin,    Richelieu,   Louis    XIII.,    and    Conde.       Two    volumes, 
octavo       .........  .  .     $5  oo 

"  II  is  interesting,  it  is  suggestive,  it  is  trustworthy,  and  in  all  essentials  it  is  credit- 
able. It  can  be  recommended  as  a  solid,  conscientious,  thorough!}'  worked-out  book 
...     Its  permanent  value  is  increased  by  a  good  index."— .^V.  V.  Tribune. 

The  Peace  of  Utrecht.     By  James  W.  Gerard.      An  Historical  Review 

of  the  Great  Treaty  of  1713-14,  and  of  the  Principal  Events  of  the  War 

of   the   Spanish   Succession.       With    Maps.      Octavo,    cloth,  bevelled 

boards,  gilt  tops,  uncut  edges,  pp.  xv.  +  420    .  .  .  .       3  00 

"  Mr.  Gerard  has  opened  up  a  mine  of  historical  wealth  which  will  be  a  revelation 
to  many  who  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  themselves  as  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  the  subject."— Z>t'/r^/^  Free  Press. 

English  Thought  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  By  Leslie  Stephen, 
Author  of  "  Hours  in  a  Library,"  etc.,  etc.  Second  and  revised  edi- 
tion.    Two  volumes,  large  octavo,  pp.  xv.  4-  466,  xi.  +  469      .       8  00 

"  A  work  of  research  and  deliberation,  every  way  worthy  of  the  author's  reputa- 
tion. Conscientious,  thoughtful,  abounding  in  ripe  reflection,  and  in  judgment  tem- 
pered and  weighed  by  experience.  We  feel  we  have  in  our  hands  a  book  which  it  is 
worth  while  to  read.  ...  It  is  little  to  say  these  volumes  are  the  most  complete 
survey  we  have  of  our  eighteenth-century  Wtexdi.iure.^''— London  Academy. 

On  English  Literature  in  the  Reign  of  Victoria,  with  a  Glance  at 

the  Past.     By  Henry  Morley,  Professor  of  English  Literature  in 

the  University  of  London.     With  facsimiles  of  the  signatures  of  250 

of  the  authors  referred  to. 

Popular  edition,  square  i6mo,  pp.  xl.  -l-  416     ....  75 

Library  edition,  crown  octavo,  cloth  extra,  pp.  xl.  +  361  .        2  co 

"This  thoroughly  excellent  work  presents  a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  literature 
from  the  time  of  Caedmon,  through  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  Anne,  down  to  the 
reign  of  Queen  Victoria.  .  .  .  It  is  a  book  teachers  and  students  of  literature  will 
find  not  only  exceedingly  instructive,  but  helpful  in  their  work  as  educators.  It 
should  be  in  every  well-chosen  library."— AVio  England  Journal  0/ Education. 

A   History  of  English   Prose    Fiction.      By   Bayard   Tuckerman, 

From  Sir  Edward  Malory  to  George  Eliot. 

Crown  octavo,  pp.  331       .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        i   75 

"  It  has  the  merit  of  brevity,  and  gives  an  intelligible  and  useful  review  of  the  de- 
velopment of  English  prose  ^cWovl.^''— Independent. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  Publishers.  New  York  and  London. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS. 

A  History  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War.     By  Anton  Gindely,  Professor 

of  German  History  in  the  University  of  Prague,  Translated  by 
Andrew  Ten  Brook,  recently  Professor  of  Mental  Philosophy  in  the 
University  of  Michigan.  With  twenty-eight  illustrations  and  two  maps. 
With  an  introductory  and  a  concluding  chapter  by  the  Translaior. 
Two  volumes,  octavo,  pp.  xvi.  +  456,  vi.  +  454        .  .  .     $4  00 

"Indispensable  to  the  student.  For  the  general  reader  it  is  one  of  the  most  pic- 
turesque in  history." — Har^/ord  Courant. 

"  Unquestionably  the  best  history  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  that  has  ever  been 
written," — Balti)iiore  A  merican. 

A  History  of  American  Literature.     By  Moses  Coit  Tyler,  Professor 

of  American  History  and  Literature  in  Cornell  University,     Bradstreet 

edition.     Vols,    I.  and  II.,  comprising  the  period  1607-1765.     Large 

octavo,    pp,   XX,  +  292,   xi,  +  330,  handsomely  bound   in  cloth  extra, 

gilt  tops  ...........       6  GO 

Half  calf  extra 11  00 

Agawam  edition,  2  vols,  in  one,  octavo,  half  bound  in  leather  ,        3  00 

Half  calf 5  00 

"  It  is  not  only  written  in  a  style  of  exceptional  grace,  but  it  is  the  first  of  most 
thorough  research,  and  consequently  it  throws  light  into  a  great  number  of  corners 
that  hitherto  have  been  very  obscure,"— Prest.  C.  K.  Adams. 

Prose    Masterpieces    from    Modern    Essayists.     Comprising    single 
specimen  essays  (each  selection  is  umnutilated  and  entire)  from  Irving, 
Leigh  Hunt,  Lamb,  De  Quincey,  Landor,  Sydney  Smith,   Thackeray, 
Emerson,    Arnold,  Morley,   Helps,  Kingsley,   Curtis,  Lowell,  Carlyle, 
Macaulay,    Froude,    Freeman,    Gladstone,    Newman,   Leslie    Stephen. 
Compiled  by  G.  H.  Putnam. 
Three  volumes,  i6mo,  cloth      .         .         .         .         .         .         •       3  75 

The  same,  in  extra  cloth,  gilt  tops    .         .         .         .         .         .       4  50 

The  same  in  flexible  imitation  seal  binding  and  case,  round  corners,  red 
edges        .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .     10  GO 

The  same,  large-paper  edition,  octavo,  wiih  portraits,  cloth  extra,  gilt 
tops,  rough  edges      .....,..,       7  50 

"  Three  charming  little  volumes,  showing  admirable  judgment  on  the  part  of  the 
€ditor." — Chicago  Tribune. 

"A  most  admirable  collection,  which  presents  not  only  specimens  of  the  best  Eng- 
lish style,  but  the  methods  of  thought  and  characteristic  modes  of  expression  of  the 
several  writers." — Magazine  0/ American  History. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  Publishers,  New  York  and  London. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9-42m-8,'49(B5573)444 


HD 
9456 


PROSE  MASTERPIECES  FROM  MODERN  ESSAY- 
ISTS :  comprisiiiij  single  specimen  essays  from  Irving,  Leigh  Hunt,  Lamb, 
De  Quincey,  Landor,  Sydney  Smith,  Thackeray,  Emerson,  Arnold,  Morley, 
Helps,  Kingsley,  Ruskin,  Lowell,  Carlyle,  Macaulay,  Froude,  Freeman, 
Gladstone,  Newman,  Leslie  Stephen.  These  essays  have  been  selected 
vt'ith  reference  to  presenting  specimens  of  the  method  of  thought  and  the 
literary  style  of  their  several  writers,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
into  convenient  shape  for  direct  comparison  the  treatment  given  by  such 
writers  to  similar  subjects. 


Mv  Winter  Garden,  by  Kingsley. 

Work,  by  Ruskin. 

On  a  Certain  Condescension  in  For- 
eigners, by  Lowell. 

On  History,  by  Carlyle, 

History,  by  Macaulay. 

The  Science  of  History,  by  Froude. 

Race  and  Language,  by  Freeman. 

Kin  Bevond  the  Sea,  by  Gladstone. 

Private  Judgment,  by  Newman. 

An  Apology  for  Plain  Speaking,  by 
Stephen. 


The    Mutability    of    Literature,    by 

Irving. 
The  World  of  Books,  by  Hunt. 
Imperfect  Sympathies,  by  Lamb. 
Conversation,  by  De  Quincey. 
Petition  of  the  Thugs,  by  Landor. 
Benefits  of  Parliament,  by  Landor. 
Fallacies,  by  Smith. 
Nil  Nisi  Bonu.m,  by  Thackeray. 
Compensation,  by  Emerson. 
Sweetness  and  Light,  by  Arnold. 
Popular  Culture,  by  Morley. 
Art  of  Living  with  Others,  by  Helps. 

3  vols.,  i6mo,  bevelled  boards,  with  frontispieces  on  steel,  gilt  < 
top,  in  box,  each  .........         $i  25 

The  set  in  extra  cloth,  with  cloth  box        .....  4  50 

The  same  in  Russia-leather  binding  and  case,  round  corners, 
red  edges 10  00 

The   same,  large   paper    edition,  with   portraits,    cloth   extra, 
gilt  top,  rough  edges    .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .  75° 

THE  ESSAYS  OF  ELIA.  By  Charles  Lamb.  "The  Temple 
Edition."  Handsomely  printed  on  laid  paper  from  new  type,  with  etchings 
by  James  D.  Smillie,  F.  S.  Church,  R.  Swain  Gifford,  and  Charles  A.  Piatt. 
Octavo,  cloth  extra.        ,  ........     $4  5C> 

The  same,  Islington  Edition,  250  copies  only,  with  proof  impression  of 
etchings  on  satin.  Quarto,  numbered^  printed  upon  pure  linen  paper  ;  cloth, 
uncut $10  00 

AUTHORS  AND  PUBLISHERS ;  A  MANUAL  OF  SUG- 
GESTIONS FOR  BEGINNERS  IN  LITERATURE  :  compris- 
ing a  description  of  publishing  methods  and  arrangements,  directions  for  the 
preparation  of  MSS.  for  the  press,  explanations  of  the  details  of  book-manu- 
facturing, with  instructions  for  proof-reading,  and  specimens  of  typography, 
the  text  of  the  United  States  Copyright  Law  and  information  concerning 
International  Copyrights,  together  with  general  hints  for  authors.  Octavo, 
cloth  extra $1  00 

"  Full  of  valuable  information  for  authors  and  writers.  *  *  *  A  most  instructive 
*    *     *    and  excellent  manual."— iVar/^r'j  Monthly  (Easy  Chair). 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  PUBLISHERS, 

NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON. 


mrtVEBSlTY  OF  CAi;" 


THE    LITERARY    LIFE    SERIES. 


Vol  I.— authors    AND    AUTHORSHIP. 


CONTENTS : 

Some  Literary  Confessions. 
First  Appearance  in  Print, 
Literary  Heroes  and  Hero- Worship, 
Some  Successful  Books. 
The  Seamy  Side  of  Letters. 
Literary  Society. 
The  Consolations  of  Literature. 

Vol.  II.— pen  PICTURES   OF  MODERN  AUTHORS. 


The  Literary  Life. 
The  Chances  of  Literature. 
Concernino:  Rejected  MSS. 
The  Rewards  of  Literature. 
Literature  as  a  Staff. 
Literature  as  a  Crutch. 


Thomas  Carlyle. 
George  Eliot. 
John  Ruskin. 
[ohn  Henry  Newman. 
Alfred  Tennj-son. 
Ralph  Waldo  Emerson. 
William  Cullen  Bryant. 
Longfellow  and  Whittier. 


CONTENTS : 

Lowell  and  Holmes. 
Nathaniel  Hawthorne. 
Walt  Whitman. 
Bayard  Taylor. 
Swinburne  and  Oscar  Wilde. 
The  Brownings. 
Charles  Dickens. 
William  Makepeace  Thackeray 
Some  Younger  Writers. 


Vol.  III.— PEN    PICTURES    OF    EARLIER    VICTORIAN 
AUTHORS. 


Literary  London  in  1835. 
Edward  Bulwer,  Lord  Lytton. 
Benjamin  Disraeli,  Lord  Beaconsfield. 
Thomas  Babington  Macaulay. 

3  vols.,  i6mo,  beautifully  printed  and  bound,  in  box 


CONTENTS  : 

Charlotte  Bronte. 
Washington  Irving. 
Edgar  Allan  Poe. 
Harriet  Martineau. 


$3  25 

PEN  PICTURES  OF  MODERN  AUTHORS.  Edited  by 
William  Shepard.  New  and  revised  edition,  with  portraits  on  wood  or 
steel,  of  Carlyle,  Tennyson,  Bryant,  Hawthorne,  Dickens,  Bayard  Taylor, 
Newman,  Emerson,  Thackeray,  etc.,  etc.  Octavo,  beautifully  printed 
upon  laid  paper.     Cloth  extra,  gilt  top,  uncut  edges     .  .  .         $2  50 

"It  cannot  fail  to  awaken  in  the  thoughtful  reader  a  deeper  interest  in  the  writings 
of  those  men  whom  it  pictures." — Utica  Herald. 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  PUBLISHERS, 

NEW  YORK    AND  LONDON. 


m^i 


•:s^^ 


